Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline and District Traction," presented by Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

PORTSOY HARBOUR ORDER ONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Portsoy Harbour," presented by Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 8th November, and to be printed.—[Bill 128.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DETENUS (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).

Mr. MOLSON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many detenus have dependants who are in receipt of allowances from the Governments in India; the total sum paid in each of the last three months; and whether he will have further reductions made in these payments?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The latest detailed figures I have were compiled in July, when the number of detenus whose dependants were in receipt of allowances was about 370, and the total amount of such allowances works out at an all-round average of about 2s. a day per family. I am satisfied that due economy is now being observed, and I
may mention that in over 700 cases in Bengal no family allowances were considered necessary.

COUNCIL OF STATE (PRESIDENT).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India, on the retirement of the present President at the end of the Session, to throw open the post of the President of the Council of State to election on the same lines as in the Legislative Assembly?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member's suggestion would require amendment of the Government of India Act. I do not contemplate any revision of the existing arrangements in advance of the revision of the Constitution as a whole.

ADMINISTRATION (COST).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give a statement showing the cost of the administrative machine in India in 1908, 1920, and 1930, indicating what proportion of any increase which the figures may show is due to the introduction of reforms; and if he will furnish the House with any estimates of the total cost likely to be involved in the constitutional changes now under discussion?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer my noble Friend to detailed estimates of the additional cost involved in the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, which were printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 30th June, 1922. I am not at present in a position to furnish estimates of the probable cost of the changes now under discussion.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not my right hon. Friend think this question is of such outstanding importance that it is very desirable that an estimate should be furnished?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, but my Noble Friend will see that it is quite impossible to make any estimate until we know what changes we are going to make.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: But have not certain expenses already been incurred in setting up the North-West Frontier Province; and has not that involved increased expenditure?

Sir S. HOARE: My, hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question down.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the calling of another Round Table Conference modifies in any respect the proposed machinery of a Select Committee of both Houses to report on the proposals for a new constitution for India; and whether that committee will still have free and unfettered powers to record its opinions on all proposals accepted by the Government at the Round Table Conferences?

Sir S. HOARE: The intentions of the Government as to the machinery of a Joint Select Committee to report upon their proposals for the revision of the Indian Constitution, and as to its powers, have been in no way modified since I first made a statement on the subject on the 27th June last.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is there no change whatever in the policy of the Government owing to the forming of the Round Table Conference?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, none whatever.

FOREIGN MOTOR CARS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).

Captain STRICKLAND: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any motor cars or lorries of foreign manufacture were purchased for Government use in India during the years 1931 and 1932; if so, how many and under what circumstances?

Sir S. HOARE: During 1931 an order was placed in India for 81 Chevrolet chassis for Army use. The bodies of these vehicles were built at Bombay under a separate contract. At the same time an order was placed for about 230 British chassis of the same capacity. No other purchase of foreign vehicles for the Army in India was made in that year, and none has been made since. I cannot say for certain whether any foreign vehicles were bought for the use of other Departments of the Government of India, but I understand that the total number of vehicles
purchased by other Departments is quite small in comparison with that of Army vehicles.

Captain STRICKLAND: Can my right hon. Friend take steps to ascertain whether any foreign motor cars and chassis have been purchased by his Department?

Sir S. HOARE: I can obtain that information if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes for it, but I do not think it would be of much use to him. The main purchasing department is the Army Department, and out of 4,000 Army vehicles, only this small number of 100 were foreign made, and those foreign-made vehicles were made in Bombay.

POLICE OFFICERS (MOTOR CARS).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Ellison, district superintendent of police at Comilla, who was recently murdered, received a fatal injury while bicycling from his office to his house, in spite of a warning issued to police officers against the dangers of bicycling; and, seeing that he was bound to employ this method of conveyance, having been compelled to give up the use of a motor car owing to the cuts in pay recently made by the Government of India, whether the Government will consider making a special allowance to such officials to enable them to retain their motor cars?

Sir S. HOARE: I am fully aware of the importance of ensuring that officers serving in dangerous areas are not compelled by the cut in pay to expose themselves to avoidable risks, and I have already asked the Viceroy to examine the possibility of granting relief from the cut in cases where it has resulted in an officer whose life is known to be in danger being unable to afford to retain his motor-car.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will my right hon. Friend consider going a little further and suggesting to the Government of India that police officers generally should be allowed to have motor cars, and not wait until the danger arises?

Sir S. HOARE: I will take my hon. Friend's suggestion into account.

SITUATION.

Mr. LAWSON (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement on the present situation in India?

Sir S. HOARE: There has been no development or incident of importance during the past week.

NATIONAL CONGRESS (CO-OPERATION).

Mr. LAWSON (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the willingness of the Indian National Congress to co-operate with the Government and in the Round Table Conference, as indicated by Mr. Gandhi's assurance of 17th September, any steps have been taken, or are being taken, by the Government of India to secure such cooperation?

Sir S. HOARE: I presume that the hon. Member's question has reference to an interview between Mr. Gandhi and Press correspondents reported as having occurred on 27th (not 17th) September, in which he is stated to have said he was ready
to endorse any worthy suggestion for cooperation by the Congress with Government and the Round Table Conference
with the qualification that he emphasised and underlined the adjective "worthy." The initiative lies with Mr. Gandhi. As I said in my speech in this House on 29th April, if Mr. Gandhi has a disposition to restore the relations which existed at the Round Table Conference he will not find the slightest difficulty in conveying that fact to the Government who will earnestly consider the position thus created.

NEWSPAPERS (DEPOSIT OF SECURITY).

Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give a list of the newspapers in the various provinces from which a deposit of security has been demanded by the Government as a condition of their being allowed to continue publication?

Sir S. HOARE: A statement is being prepared and will be placed in the Library.

ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE (DELEGATES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 9.
asked the Sectary of State for India whether he can state if the date of the Round Table Conference is yet definitely fixed; and which of the Indian delegates invited have intimated their intention of attending?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot at the moment give a more definite date than that indicated in the communiqué which was recently issued on this matter—that the Conference will begin about the 15th November. The same communiqué gave a list of the delegates who have been invited and four further names were published yesterday. All of these have expressed their intention of attending, and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a complete list of the Indian delegates.

Following is the list:

The Indian Delegations at the Indian Round Table Conference which is to be held next month will be constituted as follows:

Indian States.

Invitations were issued to the Rulers of the States named below with the option to nominate representatives fully qualified to speak on behalf of the State:

State and Representative.

Hyderabad—Nawab Sir Muhammad Akbar Hydari.
Mysore—Sir Mirza M. Ismail, C.I.E., O.B.E.
Baroda—Rao Bahadur Krishnama Chari, C.I.E.
Kashmir—Mr. Wajahat Hussain, I.C.S.
Udaipur, Jaipur, Jodhpur—Rao Bahadur Pandit Sir Sukdeo Parshad, C.I.E., O.B.E.
Kolhapur—Rao Sahib J. A. Surve.
Bhopal—Rai Bahadur Raja Oudh Narain Bisarya.
Bikaner—Sir Manubhai Nandshankar Mehta, C.S.I.
Patiala—Nawab Liaqat Hayat Khan.
Rewa—Representative not yet nominated.
Nawanagar—Mr. L. F. Rushbrook Williams, C.B.E.

In addition, the Raja of Sarila will attend as representative of the small States.

British, India.

His Highness the Aga Khan, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., G.C.V.O.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
The Raja of Bobbili.
Sir Hubert Carr.
Nanak Chand Pandit.
Mr. A. H. Ghuznavi.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Gidney, I.M.S. (retd.).
Khan Bahadur Hafiz Hidayat Husain.
Sir Muhammad Iqbal.
Mr. M. R. Jayakar.
Sir Cowasji Jehangir, K.C.I.E., O.B.E.
Mr. N. M. Joshi.
Mr. N. C. Kelkar.
Diwan Bahadur Ramaswami Mudaliyar.
Begum Shah Nawaz.
Rao Bahadur Sir A. P. Patro.
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, K.C.S.I.
Dr. Shafa'at Ahmad Khan.
Sardar Tara Singh.
Sir Nripendra Sircar.
Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, C.I.E., M.B.E.
Mr. Zafrullah Khan.

COLLECTIVE FINES.

Mr. THORNE (for Mr. HICKS): 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state in how many cases during the past year a collective fine has been imposed on a whole town, village, or district in India; the amount of such fine; and for what reason it was imposed?

Sir S. HOARE: I regret that I am not in possession of this information, but will obtain it if the hon. Member desires.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a fair procedure to impose a collective fine upon a district in India where the people were innocent of any wrong?

SUGAR REFINING.

Mr. CHALMERS (for Mr. HEPWORTH): 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the increase in sugar refining in India as a result of the protective tariff upon crystal and granulated sugar imports; whether he is aware that the machinery required is being mainly ordered from other countries although it can be supplied from this country; and whether he will suggest to the Indian Government that some degree of preference should be granted to sugar machinery of British manufacture entering India?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question I am afraid that no useful purpose would be served at the present stage by asking the Government of India to go outside the Agreement so recently concluded at Ottawa.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINE.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there have been, or will be, any trade reciprocity discussions between the representatives of the Argentine Government and of Great Britain regarding such of the Ottawa Conference proposals as refer to British imports of wheat and meat; and will he take an opportunity of representing to the Argentine Government that British savings have developed the Argentine railway and tramways systems?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. An exchange of views is already taking place. As regards the second part of the question, the Argentine Government are necessarily aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend calls attention.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will my hon. Friend make it abundantly clear during the negotiations that no arrangement will be acceptable to the British people unless greater consideration is shown by the Argentine Government and people to British savings invested in Argentine railways and tramways?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend may be sure that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Has the prospective visit of the Vice-President of the Argentine Republic anything to do with this subject?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Sir PERCY HURD: Have representations also been made to the Argentine that it is a cardinal feature of British policy that the first place in British markets belongs to the British home producer and that no policy will be entered upon which breaks that policy?

Mr. EDEN: That seems to be another relevant factor.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. LEWIS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from how many different foreign Governments requests have been received to discuss the alteration or institution of trade agreements with this country since the present Government commenced the application of a system of tariffs for the protection of our industry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply about tariff negotiations which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) on the 25th instant.

Mr. LEWIS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these requests from foreign Governments show a willingness to assist our export trade in return for our assisting theirs?

Sir J. SIMON: That is one of the considerations which is brought very prominently to their notice.

EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what instructions have been given to the Export Credits Advisory Committee as to the grant of any further export credits to Russia; and within what periods and up to what amount have the committee discretionary powers in respect of such credits?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As I have already informed the House, the Advisory Committee are not at present prepared to recommend the granting of guarantees covering credits of more than 18 months in respect of exports to Russia. As regards the amount of such guarantees, this must be determined by circumstances which are the subject of close examination by the Committee in consultation with His Majesty's Government.

POTTERY AND CHINA (IMPORT DUTIES, DENMARK).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether
he has any information as to the increase in the Danish tariff on pottery and china and, if so, what the increase amounts to; and whether any steps are being taken to get it reduced?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Particulars of recent increases in the Danish tariff were published in the Board of Trade Journal on the 20th October. I am sending the right hon. and gallant Member an extract showing the changes that have been made in the duties on pottery. There is a provision by which porcelain, earthenware and stoneware ordered before 10th October for delivery before the end of 1932 may be imported at the former rates of duty up to 31st January, 1933, if accompanied by a special import licence issued by the Valuta Kontor. The difficulties caused by the increases in the duties have been taken up with the Danish Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when the negotiations with the Danish Government on this subject are likely to start and whether Mr. Bruce and Mr. Bennett will be represented at them?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My right hon. Friend should know that this matter has already been taken up with the Danish Government without waiting for the negotiations, which, in point of fact, will take place very shortly now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we expecting any good to come of these negotiations?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Concessions have already been made, as I have indicated in my answer.

RUSSIA.

Sir A. KNOX: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that in the past 10 years Soviet Russia has been paid cash for all imports to this country, amounting to over £222,000,000, while she has only purchased from this country, largely on credit, goods to the value of under £95,000,000, he will arrange in any future trade negotiations with Soviet Russia, in the interests of the British producer and exporter, some system of barter?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am not in a position to forecast the lines on
which negotiations with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics are likely to proceed, but His Majesty's Government have clearly in mind the need for reducing the disparity between the values of imports from and exports to Russia which has prevailed in the past.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that if he does not arrange some system of barter the British exporter will have no chance, because Russia will continue to buy very little of our goods and spend her trade balance in other countries?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The relevant facts will be all borne in mind.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are the figures in the question approximately correct?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot accept responsibility for the absolute accuracy of the figures, but they are approximately accurate.

Sir A. KNOX: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration that these figures are taken from an answer which he gave me 10 days ago in this House?

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Do the figures include invisible exports and imports?

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (MEAT QUOTA).

Mr. LAMBERT: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs from which

STATEMENT showing the value of the imports of Sugar Machinery into British India during each of the years ended 31st March, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, distinguishing the countries whence consigned, so far as possible.


—
Years ended 31st March


1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.


British India (including Burma):
Rupees.
Rupees.
Rupees.
Rupees.
Rupees.
Rupees.


Sugar machinery:








Total import (by sea on private account.)
620,837
913,298
1,751,641
921,079
1,368,716
3,014,449


Of which from—








United Kingdom
555,091
725,956
1,630,487
849,343
1,082,836
2,622,991


Ceylon
—
—
—
1,086
—
Further details not yet available.


Hongkong
—
—
—
140
—


Germany
21,489
111,287
23,215
8,332
23,233


Belgium
1,385
5,972
—
3,110
—


France
7,804
45,245
61,087
30,421
230,323


Italy
—
—
—
625
—


United States
35,068
24,838
36,852
28,022
32,324

Dominion he has received a communication suggesting that a revision of the meat quota arrangements concluded at Ottawa is desired?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have not received any such communication from any Dominion.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received a communication from Mr. Bruce of the Australian Government?

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, Mr. Bruce was a signatory to the Agreement, and no communication of any sort or kind has been received from him.

SUGAR REFINING MACHINERY (IMPORTS, INDIA).

Mr. CHALMERS (for Mr. HEPWORTH): 23.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the amount of sugar refining machinery imported into India in each of the last five years, giving the countries of origin and the amounts credited to such countries in respect of such machinery supplied?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE: Sugar-refining machinery is not separately distinguished in the Indian Trade Returns, but information is given for sugar machinery generally. As a number of figures are involved. I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SITUATION.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir T. WARDLAW-MILNE:

14. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the House the latest information he has as to the general situation in China?

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I have already received the answer to this question. It was only put down to-day because it would allow a statement to be made.

Sir J. SIMON: News has been received of hostilities in Szechuan and Shantung. Reports as to the former are meagre. In Shantung Chefoo has changed hands, having been occupied without disturbance by the forces of General Han Fu-chu, the Chairman of the Provincial Government. Fighting, however, continues, but no danger to British life or property is apprehended. Some improve-merit appears to have been effected in the Communist situation in Central and South China during the past few months, and military operations have succeeded in driving the Communist forces to a distance from Hankow and in partially clearing the Han valley. Normal conditions have not, however, yet been restored along the Peking-Hankow railway. A statement in regard to the recrudescence of the anti-Japanese boycott at Shanghai was made in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) on Monday last.

MANCHURIA.

Mr. CHORLTON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is yet able to say whether our trade with Manchuria will be free from any restrictions imposed by the present Administration?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government have so far no grounds for doubting that the "open door" will be effectively maintained in Manchuria in accordance with the assurances given by both the Japanese Government and the Manchurian authorities.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will my right hon. Friend make certain that no restrictions
are imposed at a later date, as we want something more than hoping?

Sir J. SIMON: We must proceed by stages, and, if there are no grounds for doubting that the "open door" will be maintained, that is so far satisfactory.

Mr. CHORLTON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of outstanding claims by British firms against the Manchukuo Government for goods or services supplied to the former governing authorities in Manchuria; whether British firms have supplied all the particulars required of them; whether the Manchukuo Government are prepared to accept responsibility for these claims; and, if so, when payment may be expected?

Sir J. SIMON: The total amount of such claims is £28,749 5s. 7d. The claims, which number 70, were forwarded early in the year by His Majesty's Consul-General at Mukden to the Fengtien Province Outstanding Commercial Debts Adjustment Committee. It is not known whether the committee have yet finished their consideration of the claims, but His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking has been asked to furnish a report on the present position.

SHANGHAI (BOYCOTT).

Mr. MOREING: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now give any information as to the formation of defence corps by local Japanese residents in Shanghai, as a consequence of the renewed boycott of Japanese goods?

Sir J. SIMON: I have received no report as to the formation of any such corps.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (APPOINTMENTS).

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British-born subjects have had appointments in one or other of the Egyptian services terminated in the last three years; and to what extent the vacancies so created have been filled by the appointment of persons from this country?

Sir J. SIMON: According to the information available to me 48 British officials of Class V and upwards left the service of the Egyptian Government in
1930, of whom 14 retired voluntarily; nine were replaced by other British subjects, and in all 26 British subjects were recruited during the year. In 1931, 27 British officials of Class V and upwards left the service of the Egyptian Government; 27 British subjects were recruited, of whom 10 occupy posts in succession to British officials who left. The above figures do not include the University and the teaching staff of the Ministry of Education. The figures for the present year are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. ATTLEE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the present position with regard to the proposed Four-Power meeting on Disarmament; and whether he can inform the House as to the result of any conversation with the Governments of France and the United States on the subject?

Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing at present to add to the information given in my answer of the 24th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Sir A. Pownall) and to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the long outstanding claims of British creditors in respect of cash and property confiscated without compensation by the Russian Soviet Government will be borne in mind in any negotiations with that Government in respect of any new trade agreement, especially having regard to the express admission of liability for such claims contained in the declaration signed by M. Krassin which formed part of the original trade agreement of 16th March, 1921?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend may rest assured that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend realise the very strong feeling in this House and the country with regard to these unfortunate people, many of
whom are very poor people, who had their claims postponed again and again, and will he see that the British Government are not fooled again in any agreement by promises which are not fulfilled?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the interests of this country by maintaining some of its export trade?

Sir J. SIMON: I can assure both my right hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend quite sincerely, that the matters that require pressing attention are receiving it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LIVESTOCK OFFICERS.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of livestock officers appointed, whether additional or replacements, during the past three years; what are the qualifications necessary for candidates; and what body is actually responsible for the individual appointments?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): One livestock officer has been appointed during the last three years to fill a vacancy caused by death. The qualifications necessary for candidates are a practical knowledge and experience of farming, milk recording and breeding of live stock—especially pedigree stock. Appointments are made by the Ministry after considering recommendations of a Selection Board, consisting of representatives of the Ministry and of the Civil Service Commissioners, by whom candidates are interviewed.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me if any practical agriculturists have been appointed livestock officers?

Major ELLIOT: The Ministry take such matters into account when considering the report of the selection committee.

PIG REORGANISATION COMMISSION (REPORT).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to implement the findings of the Pigs and Pig Product Reorganisation Commission during the present year?

Major ELLIOT: The recommendations of the Commission are receiving very careful consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the subject.

SOUTH AMERICAN COYPU.

Mr. LEWIS: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will use his powers under Section 10 of the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, to extend the provisions of that Act to the South American coypu?

Major ELLIOT: This matter is at the present time under consideration.

Mr. LEWIS: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that some of these animals which have been imported have already escaped, and that they are capable of doing considerable damage to banks of rivers or canals and to drainage systems?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, and I am considerably concerned about the damage done by a previously introduced animal—the musk rat.

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Earl CASTLE STEWART: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to increase employment, and in view of the present cheapness of land, livestock, and money, he will consult with the building societies and similar organisations as to the feasibility of financing without Government subsidy an agricultural mortgage bank or a comprehensive scheme of land settlement for those who desire to purchase or equip small holdings by instalments?

Major ELLIOT: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my Noble Friend's suggestion. I cannot, within the limits of an answer to a question, enter into the various considerations involved, but I shall be pleased, if my Noble Friend so desires, to discuss them with him.

WHEAT ACT.

Lord FERMOY: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the amount which will be distributed to wheat growers in Norfolk under the Wheat Act before the end of the current year?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply I gave on
Thursday last to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith). I have at present no information as to the amount that may be advanced by the Wheat. Commission Ito wheat growers in Norfolk on account of deficiency payments under the Wheat Act before the end of the current year.

BACON FACTORY, SHERBURN-IN-ELMET.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take with the premises of the bacon factory at Sherburn-in-Elmet, Yorkshire, which has recently come into the possession of the Government by virtue of their position as first mortgagees?

Major ELLIOT: A Government loan secured by way of first mortgage was made to the society which operated this factory, but the premises have not come into the possession of the Ministry. The liquidator has failed to sell the property by auction, and I am keeping in touch with local interests as to the future of the factory.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to correct the statement which appeared in the Press that the liquidator bad handed over the deeds to the Ministry of Agriculture?

Major ELLIOT: I think that this question and answer will sufficiently correct that impression.

POTATOES (IMPORT DUTIES).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the recently increased duties on foreign potatoes are sufficient to prevent an undue amount of importation; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Major ELLIOT: The answer to the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend must necessarily be a matter of opinion. The matter is, I suggest, hardly one that can properly be dealt with within the limit of question and answer, and I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that he will have an opportunity of raising it during the discussion on the Resolution now on the Order Paper, affirming the Treasury Order under which the duties were imposed.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that
the opinion of the Scottish potato growers is that nothing short of complete prohibition will suffice?

Major ELLIOT: All that my hon. and gallant Friend asked was whether the duties were sufficient to prevent an undue amount of importation, not whether they were sufficient to bring about complete prohibition.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LEASES (CARLTON GARDENS AND TERRACE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture under what circumstances the Commissioners of Crown Lands have decided to let No. 4, Carlton Gardens to a firm of paint manufacturers; whether it is proposed to change the residential character of Carlton Gardens and Carlton House Terrace as the leases fall in in order to convert them into business premises; whether the Commissioners are advised that larger rentals will thus be obtained, or what is the reason for the change in policy with regard to this property; and whether he will assure the House that the facade of the new building to be erected on the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens will harmonise with the remaining part of Carlton Gardens and Carlton House Terrace?

Major ELLIOT: The Commissioners of Crown Lands have entered into a building agreement with Pinchin, Johnson and Company, Limited, for the erection of a block of offices on the site of 4, Carlton Gardens. This house had stood empty for nearly two and a-half years and the Commissioners were advised that it was impossible to let it as a private residence, except possibly at a rent far below the bare site value, by reason of the heavy expenditure necessary to bring the premises up to the standard of modern requirements. The Commissioners are satisfied that the property will show a much higher return if it is rebuilt as proposed than as a private residence. In the design of the new building the considerations mentioned in the last past of the question were kept in view and the elevation was submitted to and approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Similar considerations apply to certain of the houses in Carlton House Terrace, but no general decision has so far been taken with regard to the future development of
this property. I am advised that legislation would probably be necessary before new buildings could be erected on the Carlton House Terrace site, and accordingly the House may rest assured that it will have an opportunity of considering the proposals. A layout plan and elevational drawings will no doubt be made available to Members.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that this new building stands some 50 feet above the other premises in the Gardens: that there is a clause in the lease on these houses laying down that they shall be used as private houses only; and does he think it fair to the other tenants who rely on that covenant in their leases to have sky-scraping business premises put down without any warning?

Major ELLIOT: I am aware that there are considerable difficulties in the whole of this site, and I shall be willing to discuss the question with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in other estates of this kind the leases are arranged to fall in together so that the character of the whole site can be changed at one time, and so that tenants taking houses for a definite purpose are not prejudiced by finding another lease for a different purpose suddenly taken next door?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the high charges made for party telephone lines in the Bold district, near Widnes, Lancashire; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to some more economic means of operation which will facilitate a reduction of charges?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am making local inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General what measure of success has attended the recent advertisement campaign carried out by his De-
partment with regard to telephones; and what has been the approximate cost of such advertising?

Sir K. WOOD: The advertising campaign, which began effectively at the beginning of the present year, has, I believe, had a considerable measure of success and has been generally approved. In addition to Press advertising the campaign has included a number of telephone exhibitions, a poster campaign and the issue of telephone leaflets. The total number of telephone stations in this country has shown a substantial increase at a time when telephone systems in some other countries are losing stations. I am satisfied that it is sound policy to advertise the telephone service both from the point of view of retaining old subscribers and attracting new ones and of generally stimulating interest in the telephone system. The amount expended during the period January to September, 1932, on all these matters was approximately £25,000.

Mr. WRAGG: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount expended on telephone development during the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, and up to the latest date in 1932?

Sir K. WOOD: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:



£


1929–30
10,054,540


1930–31
9,946,226


1931–32
8,663,376 (estimated)


1st April, 1932, to 30th September, 1932
3,561,000 (estimated)

The figures cover expenditure on new works, sites and buildings but not renewals or maintenance.

AIR-MAIL SERVICES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General whether with a view to benefiting British commercial aviation, he will consider the possibility of making arrangements for despatching air-mail letters for the East by British machines as far as Karachi, to be there transferred into machines operating eastwards therefrom rather than permitting
them to be carried in foreign machines over the whole route from England?

Sir K. WOOD: The timetables of the British and foreign air services to the East do not coincide, and the adoption of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would increase the time of transmission of air mails for countries beyond India by four days. In view of the disadvantages which would thus result to British firms trading with the East I regret I cannot see my way to alter the present arrangements.

Captain NORTH: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount of profit made by his Department in respect of airmail fees during each of the past 12 months; and whether he is aware that the present high charges on air-mail letters are hampering the development of such services?

Sir K. WOOD: Monthly figures of Air Mail receipts are not available, but the aggregate profit last year is estimated at £5,000 or rather less than 5 per cent. of the total receipts. This profit is wholly due to the depreciation of sterling in relation to gold but in any case I regret it would not justify a reduction of charges.

Mr. CHALMERS (for Mr. HEPWORTH): 42.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state to what extent profits obtained by his Department from British air-mail services have been allocated during the current year to subsidise foreign air-mail services; and whether it is intended to continue such practice?

Sir K. WOOD: The profits on British air services are not used to subsidise foreign air services, and the second part of the question therefore does not arise.

TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Mr. LEWIS: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that for the year 1930-31 for every shilling's worth of telegraphy used by the public, the State contributed a subsidy of, approximately, 2¼d.; and if he will cause inquiry to be made as to what further measures may be necessary to convert the telegraph service from a national burden into a source of revenue for the relief of taxation?

Sir K. WOOD: I am, of course, aware that the telegraph service is being carried
on at substantial loss, although there has been a substantial reduction in the deficit since the year quoted. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the reply which was given to a question by the hon. Member for Leeds Central (Mr. Denman) on the 26th instant.

Mr. LEWIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this loss would not largely disappear if the cost of Press telegrams was borne by newspaper proprietors instead of being largely borne by the general public?

Sir K. WOOD: I hardly think that would be so. I can give my hon. Friend the figure, but I am afraid it would not considerably affect the very substantial deficit there is at present. I think it must be in other ways that we must endeavour more particularly to deal with the situation.

Mr. DENMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, instead of attending to outside committees, deal with this matter himself in any way he knows to be possible?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not know to what my hon. Friend refers, but he may be assured that I am giving constant personal attention to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the need for national economies, he proposes to ask Parliament to discontinue next year voting a sum for opera subsidy?

Sir K. WOOD: After consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have decided that it would be desirable to suspend the opera subsidy for the year ending 31st December, 1933. I shall not, therefore, ask Parliament next year to make the contribution previously paid to the costs of the arrangements made between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Syndicate for the production of grand opera. I have so informed the Corporation and at the same time I told them I hoped in the interests of British opera as well as
of broadcasting they would render such further help and under such conditions as they might consider proper. I am glad to say the Corporation have agreed in view of the present national position to do this, and they are now in communication with the parties interested.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (FURNITURE AND FITTINGS).

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 43.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will confer with the Imperial Institute Committee on timber and arrange that suitable Empire hardwood of a decorative type shall in future be used for the furniture and fittings of the interiors of public buildings put up by his Department, and that the origin of the wood shall where possible be indicated on the articles made in order to inform the public and the building trades?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): My Department has been in touch not only with the Imperial Institute but with all bodies concerned with the encouragement of the use of Empire timber, and contracts are let to firms offering such timber so long as the prices are within the usual preferences accorded under present policy, and every endeavour will be made to secure suitable home and Empire timbers for our purposes. I should be reluctant to adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question, as the addition of labels would in many cases be detrimental to the appearance of furniture and fittings.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions: Has he assured himself that we could get an adequate and continuous supply if the orders were given? Further, does he realise that the public do not know that any woods other than mahogany, walnut and oak are available and that it is necessary to bring these other decorative Empire grown woods to their knowledge?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I agree that the woods my hon. Friend has mentioned are those that are chiefly used. I think that practically the whole of the contracts for furniture placed by my Department specify that the mahogany and the walnut are to be Empire woods; of oak we have not a sufficient supply of the right quality. As to other more or less fancy
woods, efforts are made to popularise them, but until furniture generally is made of those new woods it is difficult to prescribe that they shall be used.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CORPS OF CUSTODIANS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 44.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what uniform is to be worn by the new corps of custodians at the Houses of Parliament?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The uniform to be worn will be similar to that of the present night-watch, with certain slight alterations.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue of hard helmets to these custodians as a protection in case of emergency?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I really do not think that is necessary.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 46.
asked the First Commissioner of Works which are the posts at which it is proposed to substitute custodians for police officers while Parliament is sitting?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The six posts in question are all situated in the House of Lords.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed reduction of the police employed at the Houses of Parliament will entail a corresponding reduction in the Metropolitan Police?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir; on the introduction of the custodians it is hoped to reduce the authorised establishment of the Metropolitan Police by about 40 men.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (DOGS).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 47.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any and, if so, which breeds of dogs are barred from entering the Green Park unless muzzled or on a leash, and for what reason; and what regulations govern the entry of dogs into the other Royal Parks?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Greyhounds are not allowed into the Green and other
Royal Parks unless muzzled or kept on a lead. A regulation to this effect was made last July in consequence of recent attacks by dogs of this breed on other smaller dogs. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the general regulations relating to dogs in the Royal Parks.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair to discriminate against any special breed of dog in favour of others?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They are the only breed of dog which has killed other animals in the Royal Parks lately. The attempt to train racing greyhounds in the Royal Parks ought to be stopped.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITORS BILL.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 48.
asked the Attorney-General whether he has yet received from the Law Society the draft of the Solicitors Bill; and, if so, whether he will consult with the various sections in the House in order that the Bill may be an agreed Measure and be given facilities for an early passage through Parliament?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir F. Boyd Merriman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have also been informed that the Council of the Law Society have empowered their Parliamentary Committee to take steps to secure the early introduction of the Bill into Parliament and its passage into law.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Do the Government propose to give facilities if it is an agreed Bill?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think it would be better to wait and see whether it is in truth an agreed Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WEST HAM.

Mr. THORNE: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges in the borough of West Ham on 18th October, 1931, and 30th October, 1932?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The numbers of unemployed
persons on the registers of Canning Town and Stratford Employment Exchanges were 22,522 at 19th October, 1931, and 20,913 at 26th September, 1932.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. THORNE (for Mr. GROVES): 45.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government is now ready to receive overtures from local authorities in respect of proposed schemes of work in order to relieve the position of the unemployed; and whether he can give some assurance that the schemes of work which were stopped a year ago can soon be recommenced and that other schemes already sanctioned by Parliament can be begun?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): This is not a subject which can be dealt with in reply to a question, especially as an arrangement to exchange views on the general subject beginning, I believe, this week has been made.

Mr. THORNE: When that Debate takes place, will it be possible for the Government to put complete proposals before the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole purpose of that Debate is that we may engage in an exchange of views, and get some understanding on each other's position in a better way than by a mere party Debate.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we take it that the Government will make their contribution?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend need have no doubt at all about the members of the Government making a contribution to that Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR RATES.

Mr. THORNE: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the rate in the £ for Poor Law purposes for the years 1930–31 and 1931–32 at East and West Ham, Lincoln, Sheffield, St. Helens, Norwich, Bournemouth, Blackpool and Southport?

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As the answer contains a number of figures in tabular form, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to the rate demand notes, copies of which have been furnished to my Department, the amounts required in the county boroughs mentioned for public assistance, expressed as a rate in the pound, were as shown in the statement below. The expenditure to which these rates were equivalent was defrayed partly out of rates collected from the ratepayers and partly out of the Exchequer grants under the Local Government Act, 1929.

—
1930–31.
1931–32.





s.
d.
s.
d.


East Ham
…
…
4
10.1
5
1.3


West Ham
…
…
7
3.9
8
3.8


Lincoln
…
…
5
0.5
5
6.0


Sheffield
…
…
4
11.8
6
2.4


St. Helens
…
…
4
11.6
5
3.0


Norwich
…
…
5
8.7
6
3.3


Bournemouth
…
…

11.2

9.9


Blackpool
…
…

6.4

5.9


Southport
…
…

11.0
1
0.0

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (ROAD ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can assure the House that the finance, construction, and maintenance of main roads in Kenya where they pass through native reserves will not be placed under the authority of European district councils, but retained in the control of the appropriate Government Department as hitherto?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): If the question is intended to suggest that a proposal is being referred to me by the Governor of Kenya it would not be proper for me, without seeing the proposal, to hind myself not to consider it; but I can certainly assure the House that I am fully alive to the obvious objections to giving district councils authority in native areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE, CONGLETON (APPOINT- MENT).

Mr. REMER: 57.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the reasons why he is objecting to the appointment of the new chief constable in the borough of Congleton?

Sir.J. GILMOUR: Congleton is one of the boroughs whose police force would be merged with that of the county if the recommendations of the Select Committee on the amalgamation of small police forces are given statutory effect. All appointments of chief constable are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State; and in view of the Select Committee's report, my predecessor informed the watch committee that he would hesitate to approve a new appointment to the Congleton police force which might have to be terminated in the near future; especially as the abolition of the post might result in a substantial charge in respect of compensation for loss of office. The question is receiving further consideration in the light of representations which have been made to me by the watch committee.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new chief constable is quite aware of the circumstances to which he has alluded, and is quite prepared to take the risk?

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Does that mean that the recommendations of the Select Committee are to be given effect to at last?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot add anything to the answer which I have already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — STOCK EXCHANGE (RESTRICTIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the restrictions on the issue of foreign loans or conversions at home are imposed in the interest of investors of British capital or to keep money cheap and plentiful for other purposes?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): A number of considerations entered into the decision, but, broadly speaking, the object of these restrictions was, as regards foreign loans, to strengthen the position of the sterling exchange, and as regards the optional conversion of existing loans, to prevent undue congestion in the new issue market and so facilitate the raising of new money for the expansion of business.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why have facilities been given to the South African Government to borrow money at 3½ per cent, when industries in this country are prohibited from making any conversions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that I have already answered the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No. Does the Financial Secretary consider that a South African loan facilitates industry in this country?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it a fact that industries in this country are prevented from making conversion loans?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. STOURTON: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that many wealthy people reside abroad for the sole purpose of tax evasion, because under the existing law they may spend three months in any one financial year in the United Kingdom without being liable to assessment for British Income Tax, he will consider introducing legislation to reduce substantially the period of residence in the United Kingdom for purposes of Income Tax liability in order to stop this practice?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The rule to which my hon. Friend refers applies to all persons who leave the United Kingdom to reside abroad and subsequently return to this country from year to year. My right hon. Friend is afraid it would not be practicable in administering this rule to discriminate on the lines suggested in the question and a general restriction of the period would be a hardship for the many British subjects who have gone abroad for business and other reasons and desire periodically to visit this country. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that the matter is one that is kept under close review. As he is no doubt aware, income from sources within the United Kingdom is generally speaking liable to tax wherever the recipient resides.

Mr. STOURTON: Surely the Financial Secretary realises that many of the
foreign residents to whom he refers reside abroad solely for the purpose of tax evasion?

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: May I ask if the restriction of this term to three months would only mean that this country would not benefit even by that term, and would it not be much better to make reciprocal terms with the countries in which these people take refuge?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (BUNKERS HILL ROAD).

Mr. REMER: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the condition of the road known as Bunkers Hill, in the urban district of Bredbury and Romiley; if he is aware that this arterial road, owing to a subsidence, has collapsed and is now closed to all traffic; that the only approach from important areas to this urban district is by diversion of the traffic four miles round; that the Cheshire county council surveyor has advised that it is useless to rebuild the road and that the only remedy is the construction of a new road down the valley; and what steps he is taking to secure that this work shall be undertaken at the earliest possible moment?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The need for economy in road expenditure makes it very difficult to give grants even to work of this character, but I am looking further into this particular scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW FOREST (ELECTRIC CABLES).

Mr. PERKINS: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the reasons why, in view of the fact that the Electricity Commissioners have no legal power to carry overhead electric cables over the New Forest without the consent of the Forestry Commission, he appointed a commissioner to hold an inquiry; and whether he will assure the House that no further public money will be expended in this direction?

Mr. PYBUS: The inquiry into the application of the Central Electricity Board in connection with the proposed construction of certain transmission lines
was held in accordance with the statutory provisions which, I am advised, apply. The matter is now under consideration by the Forestry Commissioners and myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (EMPLOYES).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Birmingham City Council has granted authority for certain cinemas in that town to open on Sundays, one of the conditions being that, whilst the employés shall not receive wages on Sundays, they are regarded as not being legally in employment on that day; and, as this is inconsistent with the provisions of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, if he will communicate further with the city council on the lines laid down in the circular he recently issued to the local authorities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I am informed that the Birmingham city justices recently allowed the cinemas to be opened for purposes of charity in connection with Hospital Sunday, and in accordance with Section 1 (1) of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, a condition was imposed to the effect that no person should be employed at the performances who had been employed on each of the six previous days. The question was raised whether services voluntarily given and duties gratuitously performed in connection with these particular performances would constitute "employment" for the purposes of the Statute. The advice given to me and communicated to the justices was to the effect that, while I could not express any authoritative opinion, the gratuitous and voluntary performance of these duties by the staffs concerned would not appear to constitute "employment" for the purposes of the Statute, seeing that no element of a contract of service seems to be present. The correctness of this view can only be determined by a court of law.

Mr. DAVIES: Are we to understand that the cinema industry can contract out of the provisions of this Act by employing their servants seven days a week, and declare that on the seventh day, because they work for nothing, they are not employed at all?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no contract of employment if it is voluntary.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not a fact that they can be employed for seven days a week merely by saying that there is no contract for employment on the seventh day, consequent on the fact that they are not drawing any wages?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have pointed out, that point can only be settled in a court of law.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is it not a fact that these men can be employed six days a week with an understanding that they give voluntary service on the seventh days?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is general agreement that the conditions of service in this industry are not by any means good already?

Mr. DAVIES: Is not this a violation of the spirit that prevailed in this House when the Act became law?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Was not a definite pledge given in Committee upstairs that a man employed for six days a week in that industry should not be employed on the seventh day, whether he was paid or not?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of that fact. I have taken advice on this matter, and I have stated frankly to the House what I have been advised. I think this point can only be settled by an action in the courts.

Mr. THORNE: Is the Home Secretary not aware that some of the local authorities, in making agreements with the cinema people, insert a clause in the agreement that the men shall not work more than six days a week? That is done in West Ham.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do not the Government regard this as the grossest breach of faith with the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the present position in the spinning section of the cotton industry?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): It is a matter for very
great regret that the delegates of the Spinners' Amalgamation have rejected, by a majority, the provisional wages settlement made by their Executive and have thus caused a dislocation of the industry at a time when a definite improvement of its circumstances was in sight. In view of the keen competition with which the cotton industry has to contend, a stoppage of work will cause not only temporary but also permanent loss to employers, operatives and the country. It was with a view to avoiding this result that, after long and hard fought negotiations, the Executives of the employers' and operatives' organisations agreed to a compromise on their respective demands.
The general agreement which is thus placed in jeopardy includes provisions for ensuring the just and peaceful settlement of matters affecting employers and operatives, the restoration of the 48-hour week, and making that working week effective, and, a matter of considerable importance, provision for special consideration of the conditions of lower-paid workers.
Having regard to the fact that the conditions in the industry can be generally reviewed by the joint machinery in its improved form, I venture to hope that an end will quickly be made of a situation which can be satisfying only to those who are opposed to the operation of the system of collective agreements and who prefer destructive to constructive methods.
I am glad to be able to add that the meeting of the Negotiating Committee which was arranged when the provisional settlement was reached on 22nd October is taking place in Manchester this afternoon, and that the representatives of the employers' and operatives' organisations will attend.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the representative of the Ministry of Labour, who has been so extremely useful in his negotiations, also attend?

Sir H. BETTERTON: He is there this afternoon, at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make concerning the
demonstration held in Trafalgar Square yesterday; the number of arrests, if any, that were made; the number of persons and police officers injured; whether he is now able to give to the House the report of the Commissioner of Police concerning the disturbances in Hyde Park on Thursday last, and whether the authorities have obtained any further information as to the persons responsible for the van containing sticks with iron prongs, which was found inside the park during the demonstration?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As part of the demonstrations organised in connection with the visit of unemployed marchers to London, a meeting was held in Trafalgar Square yesterday, for the purpose of collecting funds. Contingents assembled in various parts of London and marched to Trafalgar Square, arriving between 2 and 3 p.m. About 8,000 persons in all were present. They included a large number of spectators who, by their mere presence, added considerably to the difficulties of the police, in spite of appeals made by the Commissioner asking the public to keep away from demonstrations of this character.
In view of information which has reached the Commissioner, it was thought advisable to search the contingent which assembled at Brixton. It numbered about 100, and, as a result of the search, it was found that three persons were in possession of weapons consisting of a cane with a lead ball on the end, a stone tied up in a handkerchief, and a piece of lead encased in rubber at each end. These men were arrested and charged. Another person was found to have stones in his pocket. One member of another contingent, a young man of about 17 or 18, was found in the possession of stones. He also was arrested and charged.
During the meeting in Trafalgar Square, at about 3.15 p.m., a rush was made towards the Admiralty Arch by a section of the crowd, and it was found necessary to close the gates. Shortly afterwards an attempt was made to rush down Whitehall; but the rush was checked by a double cordon of police which was promptly drawn across the road. Apart from these minor incidents, the meeting, which terminated at 4.30 p.m., passed off without disorder.
While the contingents were marching away, a slight disturbance occurred in
Northumberland Avenue, where a shop window was broken, believed by a stone, shortly after one of the contingents had passed. One of the crowd attempted to kick a constable who was examining a man whom he saw on the ground. Some disorder followed, and it was necessary for the police to draw their truncheons to restore order. The constable's assailant was arrested and charged. Shortly afterwards there was a further disturbance at Great Scotland Yard, and it was necessary to use mounted police to clear the streets. The total number of persons arrested was five. One constable and three members of the public, all men, were slightly injured.
As regards the second part of the question, I have received full reports from the Commissioner of Police, but I do not think that there is much that I can usefully add to the statement which I made on Friday last. The total number of persons arrested was 14, of whom five have been dealt with by the Courts. On charges of assaulting the police, one man was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and another to three months' imprisonment. On charges of obstructing the police, two persons were fined and one was discharged. In the remaining nine cases a remand was ordered. Of the two police officers who were seriously injured, one has now been discharged from hospital, but I regret to say that Chief Inspector Oger's condition is still serious. As regards the lorry, which on being searched was found to contain sticks, some with nails protruding through them, further inquiries are being made, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. McGOVERN: Having interviewed you privately, Mr. Speaker, and asked your permission to make a personal statement, I now, in view of the fact that I intimated to you and to the House that I would introduce a petition asking that a deputation of unemployed hunger marchers should be received at the Bar, ask the indulgence of the House while I give the following reasons for my inability to introduce such a petition.
It had been intimated, through their Press, by the leaders of the National Unemployed Workers Movement that they
desired to present a monster petition to Parliament, signed by 1,000,000 persons, asking for the withdrawal of the means test, restoration of cuts in benefit, etc., and also to send a deputation to the Bar of the House to plead the cause of the suffering unemployed. Believing that to be a worthy effort, and knowing that they had no official representatives in this House and that, before they could appear at the Bar, certain formalities had to be gone through to clear the way for their presence, I went out of my way to interview them and offer, on behalf of our group, to place our services at their disposal and to provide the necessary machinery. Having met Mr. Wal Hannington and Mr. Harry McShane on Friday, and made that offer to them, on behalf of the unemployed hunger marchers I have been informed this morning by Mr. McShane that their council discussed the offer yesterday, and decided to reject this necessary medium and to rely on their massed strength to force Parliament to allow their deputation to appear at the Bar. I regret that decision, and come to the conclusion that the unemployed leaders do not desire to appear at the Bar. I feel sure that the hunger marchers will resent the loss of this opportunity, and, although our cooperation has been rejected, we shall still continue in our own way to work on behalf of that unfortunate section of society.

Orders of the Day — OTTAWA AGREEMENTS BILL.

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 28th October.]

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Sir DKNNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Charge of Customs Duties on goods specified in Second Schedule.)

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after the words "agreements," to insert the words:
(except in so far as they relate to fresh or raw fruit).
The Committee will be familiar with some of the arguments that have been employed on previous occasions on this issue, but I hardly think the subject received the serious consideration that it deserved when we discussed it on the last occasion; and I do not think the Government have fully explained the reasons they had for entering into an agreement relating to fruit. We have been told that these arrangements are designed to encourage our own fruit growers—to increase wholesale prices—we have always been told that—and above all to find employment for our folk at home. I feel positive, on the other hand, that this arrangement is definitely an encouragement to the Dominion fruit growers and traders, and the hon. Gentleman nods assent right away. That is the first occasion I have ever seen a member of the Government in agreement with anything that I have said, consequently I feel that I am making a little headway. As stated, all the encouragement is definitely in favour of the Dominion producers. When you enter into an agreement in favour of the Dominion producer, it does not follow of necessity that it will help in the least the home fruit grower. The hon. Gentleman does not nod assent to that statement.
Every statement that has been made on these Ottawa proposals has lent colour to the view that they are going to increase employment here at home. This may be a very strong statement to make, but I feel sure that I am right in prophesying that, for every 10 persons who will be employed on new or extended fruit farms in this country, there will
be 15 or 20 thrown out of employment in handling foreign fruit—sailors, dockers, and retailers. The strange thing to me is that the retailer is left clean out of the picture as far as the Government is concerned. Of course, the producer is a very important person indeed, but the hon. Gentleman ought to remember that imports of some foreign fruit have declined enormously since the passing of the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, and that must have thrown out of employment a number of persons engaged in the retail trade. That trade as a whole is very badly organised, and, consequently, no one bothers about it at all. If you had 10,000 persons employed in the retail trade thrown out of work, the Government would not take any notice at all of them. But the Farmers' Union is well organised, and consequently the Government will listen to anything they say. The fruit growers are organised, too, and they are supporters of the Government. When the Government come to face the country once again, the retail fruiterers will want to know why their trade has been damaged by these proposals, and especially by the Horticultural Import Duties.
From 1901 to 1931 there was a steady increase of fruit consumption in this country. The old saw that appeared on every hoarding, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," seemed to have got hold of a large number of our people. In 1901 we imported about 2,000,000 cwt. of apples, and in 1931 our imports had grown to over 7,500,000 cwt., and the large number of persons employed as sailors in bringing over these commodities, dockers handling them at the ports, and retailers selling them in the shops, ought to have some consideration from the Government. I am informed that the imports of cherries were reduced by 89 per cent. consequent upon the passing of the Horticultural Products Act, and currants reduced from May to July by 56 per cent. You have all along the line a decline in imported fruits consequent upon one of the first Acts passed by this Government. I would not mind so much if the retail trade suffered in order to help the home producer of fruit.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has told us that the imports of
fruit are much less this year than last. Will he say how much, because my information is to the contrary?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman's information is wrong and mine is right. The hon. Gentleman was talking to the Noble Lord sitting next to him when I was speaking, and consequently he could not gather up the thread of my remarks. If the hon. Gentleman would talk less, I think he would be able to think more clearly. I gave the actual figures, and in order that he may write another pamphlet about them perhaps he will bear them in mind. The apple import trade to this country grew from 1,830,000 cwts. in 1901 to 7,600,000 in 1931. I think that he has got these figures correctly this time.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Those are not the figures to which I was alluding.

Mr. DAVIES: Really, I am not here to inform the hon. Gentleman on every point of this kind. I am delivering my own speech. It is passing strange that the fruit growers of this country, apparently, are not to benefit as much from this arrangement as are the fruit growers in the Dominions. We on these benches have been taunted over and over again when speaking about better relations with Russia, and have been called hon. Members for Moscow and Leningrad. I am entitled now, after reading these Agreements and seeing what was done at Ottawa, to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) that he ought, in future, to be termed the hon. Member for Ottawa or Montreal. Montreal, by the way, is peopled by 50 per cent. of French people and some Ukranians thrown in. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council can no longer claim that he is the Member for Bewdley. He may even be regarded as the Member for Brisbane, or Melbourne, or Sydney. In fact, the gentlemen who went to Ottawa have been more concerned about the people in the Dominions than about those living in Derby, Bewdley or Birmingham. It is quite proper that we should raise a, protest against the idea that all the residents of the Dominions are our kith and kin. If hon. Gentlemen will analyse from whence the people of
Canada came, they will find that the majority, in Quebec, at any rate, are of French origin.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that they are less loyal than the Welsh?

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman, not being able to understand the Welsh language, cannot understand their loyalty either.

Earl WINTERTON: Nor does the hon. Gentleman understand the French language.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not want to enter into combat with two hon. Members, One at a time, if you please. There is, indeed, a very serious aspect of the proposals which we are now discussing, as they are intended deliberately to raise the wholesale price for the Dominion producer. I feel sure that it will be found that these arrangements are definitely against the home fruit grower, and, in any case, against the retailer of fruit in this country.
I am not conversant with the canning industry of this country, but I saw a reference on Friday about a meeting which was held in Birmingham. All great movements seem to come from Birmingham. Mr. George Cadbury, Chairman of the Home Canners, Ltd., said, at the Canners' Convention at Birmingham, that they could not, in fact, secure sufficient fruit for canning purposes in this land. Without taking into consideration party politics at all, I hope that the Government will do something to meet the claim of those people, so that their factories can be kept fully employed. I do not know whether those who are canning fruit in this country are using foreign fruit for the purpose, but, if they are, the Government ought to take note of the fact that the canning industry is a new industry and ought to have an opportunity of developing properly, because it uses up a great deal of tinplates produced in this country. The right hon. Gentleman smiles because I say that, as the tinplate industry is carried on in South Wales. I do not represent Wales in this House, and at the moment I am thinking more particularly of the fruit growers of Evesham. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will
be able to tell us whether the canneries are requiring foreign fruit for the purpose of their factories in this country.
I wish to put a further point which has been given to me in all good faith by those engaged in the trade. I am informed that foreign pears vary in quality and price more than almost any other kind of fruit which comes into this country. I understand that pears are now sold at 4d. a 1b., 10d. a 1b. and even 1s. a 1b., and that the retail fruit trade is very much alarmed because the universal duty of 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. will impose a very much heavier tax upon the poor people who are only able to afford pears at 4d. a 1b. as against those who are able to buy pears at 1s. a 1b. The percentage of duty upon the cheaper fruit is much larger, as the hon. Gentleman will see. Therefore the Government ought really to try and introduce a change in the arrangements whereby the duty shall be imposed upon the price that the box or barrel of fruit will fetch in the market. I think that that, in technical terms, is called ad valorem duty. The hon. Gentleman will be able to correct me if I am wrong on that score.
I have now raised one or two points which have not yet been mentioned, and I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is to speak, whether, in giving these preferences to the Dominions, and especially to Canada, any question was ever raised in the Conference as to the number of people sent home to this country by the Canadian Government because they were a burden upon their public funds? I think that about 10 or 12 people were sent home to Lancashire not long ago, and they had lived in Canada for some 5, 10, 12, 15 or 20 years. There was a very strong feeling in those parts against the action of the Canadian Government in sending their citizens back to this country, because they declined to maintain them out of public funds.

Mr. MABANE: Is it not a fact that deportation can only apply to people who have been in the country under five years, and that people who have been there longer than five years cannot be deported?

Mr. DAVIES: I am not so sure about that; I have not been deported myself. I think that I am right anyhow.

Mr. MABANE: I am sure that you are wrong.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman is not the first man who has told me that I have been wrong and it has afterwards been found that I have been right.

Mr. MABANE: I shall not be found to be wrong this time.

Mr. DAVIES: Whether it is five years or 10 years, strong feeling has been aroused in parts of Lancashire because the Canadian Government have sent home again some of these people who have lived there for a long period. In giving all these preferences to the Dominions, was a question like that raised at all at the Conference?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I desire to support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend. In the first place, I am wondering whether any good purpose can be obtained at all by detaining the Committee, or staying here ourselves to discuss these matters, particularly as it was stated, on behalf of the Government, I presume, in an earlier part of the Debate, that we could not expect to secure any concessions, modifications or any alterations of any kind in the Bill which has been presented to us. I think the words of the representative of the Government speaking on that occasion were, that not one line, not one word, and not one comma in the Bill could be altered. If that is so, of course all of us are wasting our time, on whatever side of the Committee we sit, in discussing the Bill. But there is an old saying, that while there is life there is hope, and some of us who represent constituencies in which the great majority of the people are poor, still have some hope that we can win some concessions on behalf of those poor people during the proceedings on this Bill.
I remember, as all of us do, the Empire Marketing Board, which, like the fruit trade generally in this country, invited the people to "Eat more fruit," which became a slogan which was brought to the notice of the people so continuously that they were affected by it. Another old saying that "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" also had its effect, and, as a consequence, the sales and consumption of fruit went up.
I think, however, that the sale and consumption of fruit as a consequence of the action of the Government in this matter will definitely go down, and it seems to be obvious that the benefits, so far as there are to be any benefits from this Bill, will be benefits, not to the people of this country, but to the people in the Dominions. I have not heard from the Government of any benefit that will accrue to the people of this country from the negotiations at Ottawa or from this Bill. I think it might be well for the fruit trade and Empire Marketing Board to change their slogan in future, and, instead of saying "Eat more fruit," to use another slogan, "Your fruit will cost you more," because it certainly will as a consequence of the action of the Government.
I would remind the Government that it used to be said of other Governments which preceded them, particularly of the Government that I sat, behind, and felt proud of it, that we represented every country but our own. I think it might be truly said of the Government now in power that they represent every part of the Empire but their own, and that all their activities up to now have been with the object of giving concessions to people in other parts of the Empire at the expense of the people in this part of the Empire, whom, after all, we have a right to expect them to represent when they go to Ottawa or whenever they are engaged in matters of policy between separate parts of the Empire. As I say, I am not very hopeful of getting any concession of any kind from the Government, but I desire to take the opportunity of asking the Government to reconsider their decision in regard to this matter of fresh fruit, and to give the opportunity to their people here at home to get fruit at least as cheaply as they got it before, and not to take the action which they are contemplating in this Bill of increasing the price of fruit to our people at home, even for the purpose of giving concessions to people in other parts of the Empire. I have pleasure, therefore, in supporting the Amendment, and I hope we shall get some concession on behalf of the poor people in our constituencies.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not think that there is a definite sub
stance in the difficulties which have been raised. I think it is a matter which would call for a great deal of study on the part of the Government and the House, but it is not worth while discussing it here and now. The real question lies in this: It is quite definite that we cannot alter the Agreement at Ottawa, and, therefore, if we try to upset any part of it at this time we merely destroy the whole Agreement, and do no good to this country. It is well known by everyone moving these Amendments that they are nothing else in effect than wrecking Amendments—I do not say in intention, but in effect, because there is a desire to call the attention of the public and the Government to certain points. I think that on this particular question quite enough has been said, because we know that nothing can be done now, and anybody who turns to the Agreement will see in every Agreement the words:
In the event of circumstances arising which, in the judgment of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, or of His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa—
or whatever the Dominion
—"as the case may be, necessitate a variation in the terms of the Agreement, the proposal to vary those terms shall form the subject of consultation between the two Governments.
Therefore, I think if the attention of the Government is called to this matter—we earnestly ask the Government to consider it—and the opportunity presents itself of a full discussion in a suitable moment, place and method for the Government, I, for one, am confident that the Government will take a reasonable line, and if, as some believe, there is a mistake as to date and other matters with regard to this particular Agreement, they will take it up in the usual proper way, and no doubt something will be done. But one hopes that time will not be taken up to-day when we have some important Amendments before us which can be dealt with without affecting the Agreement.

Mr. JANNER: I have listened attentively to what the hon. Member has just said, because I intend, in the course of the few words I propose to address to the Committee, to refer to some remarks which he made in a previous Debate. The discussions in respect of the Ottawa
Agreement have made one thing absolutely and abundantly clear. A large number of Members who have spoken, even those who support the action of the Government, have referred to discrepancies in the Agreements that require very careful consideration. I agree that the supporters of the Government have indicated that they are prepared to accept the Agreements, but the cumulative effect of the objections certainly form a very substantial undermining of the Agreements. It is a matter of common sense that the proceedings, which commenced in all good faith on the understanding that there should be a lowering of tariff walls, and which ended in a hurried settlement of differences so that definite Agreements should be arrived at, must contain innumerable mistakes either of omission or commission. The hon. Member himself, in the Debate on Wednesday, gave a very clear indication of this. He said:
With regard to fruit, I fear that the Government have made a mistake. I think that they are wrong both as to their dates and the tax on weight. I remember that in 1923 proposals of a similar kind were brought forward, only much worse, and they were combated by the trade who knew what they were talking about.
I want to direct attention to this, because it is rather important from our point of view on these benches.
After all, it is not the first time that mistakes have been made, and I want to bring this before the House. There has been a tendency, particularly in certain parts pf the Debate, to be angry when the reply has been given that these Agreements must stand or fall. It would he a poor sort of arrangement if the Agreements were subject to being chopped about in the different Parliaments of the Empire. Of course, they have to be maintained as they were settled. Later on we may mutually arrive at modifications."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1932; col. 1086, Vol. 269.]
The mistake has already been made. The hon. Member is aware, and we are all aware of it, and I am convinced that the Government know very well that in this instance a mistake has been made. There should be no difficulty in the Government ascertaining the facts.

Mr. COVE: Is it not the privilege only of a Front Bencher to read his speeches?

The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member was doing was reading what somebody else had said.

Mr. JANNER: As no objection has been raised by my hon. Friend on the opposite benches to the words I have quoted, which are his, of course, I take it it was quite understood I was not in any way misquoting him, and that I was quite entitled to put the facts in the words as he presented them. He says that a mistake has occurred of which we are already aware, and, I say with the greatest respect, that not only is he already aware of that mistake, but I am perfectly satisfied that the majority of those who have taken the trouble to investigate this particular case are aware of the mistake, and consequently the Government themselves must be aware of it. If they are satisfied that there is such a mistake, in my view it is important that they should examine the position as speedily as they possibly can. Where there is an obvious error, surely it stands to reason that that error should be rectified at the earliest possible opportunity.
My hon. Friend suggests that there is a provision in the Agreement for that, but how is that provision going to work? I ask him, and I ask the Government, if already, when we have a palpable mistake in front of us, we are not in a position to satisfy the Dominions or ourselves that there is power to amend the error before the Bill is passed? I say that it is our duty at the present moment to point out to the Dominions, that this is a case where an error has been committed, that they have nothing to gain from it. I say this in all earnestness, because there are people who are in the trade, an important federation of traders, who are satisfied that the matter calls for correction. Here is a mistake which has already been made as to the possibility of the Empire growing at definite times in the year the commodities which are necessary. The Empire itself is, for natural reasons, unable to cope with the demand in respect of those commodities, and therefore will not be injured in the slightest if the error is rectified. I say, and my hon. Friends here say, that if we cannot correct a mistake of this nature in the present Parliament, how on earth are we going to manage to correct mistakes at a later date, by virtue of the provisos which are contained in the Agreements themselves for settlement by mutual arrangement?
To me and to my friends on these benches the position seems perfectly clear. Suppose we went to the Dominions and we said, taking grape fruit as an
example, "You have asked us to put a tariff on grape fruit from the rest of the world, but there are portions of the year when that tariff will be of no advantage to you whatsoever. You cannot grow grape fruit during all periods of the year. For six or seven months of the year this tariff will be of no advantage to you." If we said that to the Dominions, even now—and I pointed this out over a week ago—surely the Dominions would reply by agreeing with us and saying: "You can amend this particular proviso, which does not affect us adversely in the slightest."
Who would suffer if we did amend the proviso? We have repeatedly asked that this matter should be considered. Is it intended by these measures to put an additional import duty upon our commodities? Surely not. These measures, we are told are intended purely and simply for the purpose of adjusting our relationships with the Empire and for giving the Empire an opportunity of selling us such commodities as are available in the Empire. Here, however, we have commodities which are not available in the Empire during certain periods of the year, and the only result that can follow from the imposition of tariffs on them is that these commodities will cost the consumer more, and it will not in the slightest way assist the Dominions in their efforts to obtain an extended market.
I am not going into any elaborate figures, but the bon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) said, on the last occasion, when he was speaking with regard to grape fruit, that the tariff would merely mean an increase of one farthing on each grape fruit. I have gone very carefully into the point and I say that the increased cost on a grape fruit retailed at 2½d. will be a halfpenny or three farthings.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Why?

Mr. JANNER: If my hon. Friend would like the figures, and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) will not object to me referring to my notes, I shall be happy to give them. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs states that the new tax would only increase by one farthing the cost of grape fruit. The position, as I understand it, actually is this. The cost to the importer of an
80 1b. box of grape fruit is approximately 15s. 6d. c.i.f. An additional 1s. 6d. for selling expenses is incurred. The wholesaler therefore pays 17s. and sells to the retailer at approximately 18s. 6d. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) smiles. I do not know why he smiles.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Supposing he buys Empire grape fruit, which is not taxed?

Mr. JANNER: I am talking about a period when you cannot obtain grape fruit from the Empire, and I am trying to show that during that period under this tax there will be an increase in the price, which is not justifiable. I should like my hon. Friend to listen to what I have to say, for I think that before I have finished he will be convinced that it is not a proper thing to impose this duty. A box contains a maximum of 112 grape fruit, which works cut at a cost in the neighbourhood of 2d. for each fruit. The type of grape fruit to which I am referring is the smaller kind which finds its way into the hands of the street trader and shopkeepers in the poorer neighbourhoods. The retailer sells at about 2½d. When the tax has been put on, there will be an increase of 3s. 6d. per box at the quayside. To this will have to be added a few pence and by the time the fruit reaches the consumer, the consumer will have to pay at least 3½d. for his grape fruit. Even if he had to pay only 3d., that would still be an increase of one-halfpenny on a grape fruit now retailed at 2½d., which makes a considerable difference to a family man whose income is very small at the present time. The ultimate effect will be that the trade in this particular commodity, as far as the poorer classes are concerned, will entirely disappear. The poor man will no longer be able to enjoy the privilege of consuming this fruit, and it will disappear from his table.
Another point which is of importance is that it will take five years before you can get an additional supply from the Empire, even during the seasons when the Empire can supply grape fruit. It is true that the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said that already we have an additional acreage under cultivation, but I should like to know, and we on these benches would like to know, how big is that increased acreage and what is going to be the likely result of
the cultivation. Why not have a graduated scale of tax so that as the new Empire fruit comes into the home market we shall not be interfering with the price of fruit, because we should know exactly, or within certain limits, the amount of fruit that will be available from Empire sources. The same thing applies in the case of oranges and particularly in the case of apples. I do not want to go into the figures, but the position is similar. With regard to apples the result of the proposed tax will be that instead of paying 4d. a 1b. for the poorer class of apples the consumer will have to pay about 4¾d. That is a very serious thing for a woman or a man who has to weigh up the family income and ascertain how much they are able to purchase in the way of fruit.
Some people think that a good fruit supply is unnecessary but I think it will be agreed by most of us that fruit is a very valuable food and health-giving commodity and that conditions being such as they are amongst those who have small incomes their right to obtain fruit should not be interfered with, or should be interfered with as little as possible. Have the Government taken into consideration the very important fact that some hundreds of thousands of men are employed in the fruit industry? They are well paid, even hon. Members on the Labour benches will agree that the salary or wage of £3 to £4 for a fruit porter is a good wage in present circumstances. If the consumption of fruit in this country is substantially interfered with the numbers of these and other men who are employed in the industry will be depleted, more people will be thrown on to the Employment Exchanges and the result will be that, although no benefit can possibly accrue to anybody, we shall suffer not only through a shortage in supply but through a shortage in positions for men who are at present enjoying a decent livelihood. These matters are well worth consideration, and they should be considered now.
My hon. Friend said that every opportunity has been given to those who were concerned with the trade to put forward their point of view. I would, however, respectfully remind him that a letter was sent by a very substantial organisation in this country, an organisation which deals with some £8,000,000 worth of fruit annually—an organisation which ought to
know and does know, its business and ought to receive some little consideration—asking that a member of that organisation who was conversant with the facts should be permitted to go to Ottawa, in order that he might be there consulted. That application was refused. Why? If it was necessary to consult someone, and obviously in this case it was necessary so to do—hon. Members on the opposite benches agree that it was necessary—why was not someone allowed to be present who understood the trade inside out and who would have been able to give the Government representatives at the Conference the benefit of his advice. He was not present. He was not allowed to go. The traders' organisation was not consulted. The consumers were not consulted. Those who are employed in the trade were not consulted. Consequently, we have these glaring errors, which are admitted on all sides to be errors.
I am a believer in the maxim that, "It is never too late to mend." If there is any useful purpose to be served by our discussions, and I do not agree with my hon. Friend opposite that we have no right now to amend a position in which it is clear that a mistake has been made, I respectfully submit to the Government at this stage that here is an opportunity of showing their bona fides if they honestly and definitely believe that the arrangement for amendment by mutual agreement is going to work, let them prove that that is so by immediately taking this matter in hand before they commit in legislation an obvious error and so assure the Committee that errors will be eliminated as and when they arise. Our view has always been that the Government will find difficulty in correcting errors on these tariffs once they have been made, because there are so many influences at work and so many sources to which they will have to go in order to put an error right. If we allow the error to go uncorrected now I am afraid that subsequent correction will become impossible. Here is an opportunity for the Government to show us that it is not impossible to put the matter right as and when it can be put right, without delay. In these circumstances we appeal to the Government and we can assure them that if they accede to our request and deal with these matters by accepting the
Amendment they will have no further discussion from us on the question of fruit.

Mr. LEWIS: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was interrupted by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who asked him a question. The hon. Member for Westhoughton was unable to answer that question, but contented himself by saying that if the hon. Member for South Croydon would talk less he would think more clearly. It would be interesting to apply that principle to the case of the hon. Member for Westhoughton. I hold in my hands a copy of the most recent issue of the "Parliamentary Gazette," and I find that of the 615 Members of this House there are only three who have talked as much in this Parliament as the hon. Member for Westhoughton. I find that the House has suffered from him no less than 243 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT since this Parliament started. In view of that unending stream of loquacity on every conceivable subject, I suggest that it would not be reasonable for the Committee to expect any very clear thinking from the hon. Member for Westhoughton this afternoon.
That fact may partly explain the extraordinary statement he made about employment. He said that, in his judgment, for every person who would be employed in selling fruit in this country as a result of these duties, 15 or 20 persons previously employed in handling foreign fruit would be unemployed. A moment's consideration of the circumstances show that the ultimate effect of these duties must be precisely the contrary, because in the case of fruit grown in this country, even when it has been grown, sorted and packed it has to be handled, just like imported fruit. There is all the additional labour employed in planting fruit, looking after it, picking it, sorting it and packing it. The effect of legislation such as this is exactly the reverse of that suggested by the hon. Member for Westhoughton.
I think it is broadly true to say that when this House is faced with a definite and concrete proposal designed to lead to further employment in the country districts, either in arable agriculture, in market gardening, whatever section of agriculture it may be, those proposals are always met by uncompromising
hostility on the part of the Labour party They showed their opposition to the Wheat Bill and they are showing it today on this Bill. It is a curious thing that although we get this uncompromising hostility in the House and in Committee from representatives of the Labour party, when they go to speak in agricultural districts they sing a very different tune. Only a week ago my own constituency was favoured with a visit from the Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government, Dr. Addison. He came to Colchester, and this is what he told us:
Socialism is not Free Trade, and you cannot make it so. I do not believe in the degradation of our country labourer merely because a coolie in Malay will do the work cheaper than he will.
4.30 p.m.
That, of course, is precisely opposite to the arguments continually put forward by the Labour party. If hon. Members said in this House what they and their representatives say in the country it would be more helpful in the progress of legislation. The whole attitude of the official Opposition to this Bill is clearly shown in their desire to get away from a discussion of the concrete proposals before us in order that they may air their views on unemployment and describe in touching tones the sufferings of the unemployed, and should not be called upon to take any practical remedies.

Mr. PRICE: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the realities of these Agreements. It is all bunkum for the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) to suggest that the amendments put forward by the Labour party show that they have not as much love for the Empire as hon. Members opposite. We have just as much feeling and regard for every part of the British Empire as any hon. Member opposite. I agree with the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Janner) that if the Government had taken some representatives who knew the intricacies of the fruit trade we should have had a different Agreement. That does not only apply to the fruit trade. The Government are proposing to put duties on various articles, which certainly cannot come from any of our Dominions in certain parts of the year. Many of the duties can only mean that the Government propose to raise revenue by taxing articles
of food coming from foreign countries which cannot be supplied by the Dominions. We remember what occurred in connection with the Horticultural Products (Emergency Duties) Act. We pointed out what it would mean to the people in the North of England unless there was some adjustment in those duties? What happened? During the early summer we in the North of England had tremendous difficulty of getting fruit of certain kinds which were taxed in the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act. We could not get cheap cherries and strawberries.
In these Agreements the Government are puffing a tax on fruit which cannot be supplied from the Dominions, and there is not sufficient grown in our own country during certain months of the year. It means that they are levying a tax on poor people and are driving a large number of families, who are dependent on small incomes, to the possibility of having to do without any fruit at all in their ordinary diet. The preserving manufacturers of this country last season could not get the fruit they needed for preserving, and in order to export to other countries. These Agreements, in many ways, will not bring any good to the fruit growing industry of this country and will be a levy on poor people who have to buy cheap fruit. There is no variation, according to the Schedules, of the duty to be imposed on pears and apples. This means that the cheap fruit which is eaten by the industrial population will carry the same duty as the splendid pears you find in the homes of Mayfair and which are bought by wealthy people. It has been suggested that our Amendments are of a wrecking character. I admit that we would like to see some of them go in that direction, because if this Bill goes through as it is it will wreck the country.
We are anxious to make some amendment on what, taking it as a whole, is a bad Agreement and which offers nothing to the people of this land. We are opposing the Bill and moving Amendments in order to point out the fallacy and injustice of the proposals. I am beginning to wonder whether there is not more in this Bill than the question of trading agreements with the Dominions. I am wondering whether there is not in this Bill the
policy which was outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early part of this year in his Budget speech, and that this is an attempt to put on the backs of the poor people by indirect taxation a tax on food, and thus get money for revenue purposes, not for the development from any industry in this country.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Debate has rambled a little from the subject of fruit, but the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) has brought it back to that issue. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) tried to arouse our fears by suggesting that we should lose more in distributive employment if the duties came into operation than we should gain in productive employment. He forgot that the primary object of the duties is not an increased production of these fruits in this country, but an increased production in the Dominions, and that the reaction should benefit our exporting industries to the Dominions. These dirties are, of course, some concern to British horticulturists. I interrupted the hon. Member for Westhoughton when he said that the existing duty of 10 per cent. has reduced the imports of fruit into this country. As usual the hon. Member is wrong, and if he will look at the accounts relating to trade and navigation for the month of September he will find that there has been an enormous increase in the imports of apples for the first nine months of this year as compared with last year and a large increase in the imports of bananas. It is true that the imports of cherries are down, but they represent a very small importation as compared with these other fruits. Oranges also are somewhat down. But if you take all forms of fruit you will find that the importation this year is greater than it was last year. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Janner) has said that the existing duty has brought about deplorable results and that hundreds of thousands of fruit porters——

Mr. JANNER: I must correct my hon. Friend. What I said was that there are hundreds and thousands of people engaged in the industry, including porters, who receive something between £3 and £4 per week in wages.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is suggested that there are hundreds of thousands engaged
in the distribution of fruit in this country, but if that is so the effect of the protective duty has not been to diminish consumption, and therefore the number of porters engaged has not been diminished.

Mr. JANNER: The duty has not been in operation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It has been in force since March last. Now we come to grape fruit, which is the piece de resistance of the menu which the hon. Member for Stepney put before us. It has not yet been fully established as an article of the proletarian diet. Let me point out that there is now in operation a duty of 10 per cent. on grape fruit. Has it produced the deplorable results suggested by hon. Members on the workers of this country? Are the constituents of the hon. Member for Hems-worth in grave distress because of this duty on grape fruit? Has he received a single complaint from any of his constituents? Of course he has not. What is the proposed duty we are now discussing? It is a specific duty. It raises the duty from 10 per cent. to 12i per cent.

Mr. JANNER: It is the last straw on the camel's back.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The camel is carrying the present straw without any difficulty. The apple duty is a. very interesting one. When our crop is large our imports remain unaffected. The crop in this country increases consumption in July and August and possibly September, but that in no way affects our imports, which are largely during the remaining months of the year. In the main the duty on apples will not have much effect on our own production. In a good year the supply of apples we produce is rather larger than the supplies we import; but in a bad year they drop. The duty is really imposed from an Imperial point of view. The Dominion of Canada is our natural supplier of apples within the Empire. They are grown in three areas, in British Columbia, in the Niagara Region of the Province of Ontario and in the Maritime Provinces of Nova Scotia. The total production of these three areas is such that it could easily meet the whole of our requirements.

Mr. JANNER: Has the hon. Member considered this point? Will he let us know the imports of January, February and March of last year, how they compare with the imports of America; and what the difference in the price is going to be?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have a lot of information, but not all. I cannot remember offhand the imports month by month of every commodity. I am fairly good at remembering a number of figures, but I cannot remember them all. If the hon. Member will consult this blue document provided by the fruit growers, he will find the information there.

Mr. JANNER: I have it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Then if the hon. Member will do so, he can look it up while I am getting on with my speech. Let us come back to Canada. The position is very interesting. The United States is, of course, by far the largest apple-growing country in the world. In the United States the apple crop is very fluctuating. When there is a year of surplus that surplus is far in excess of the total Canadian crop. The result is that you get swept into this country an enormous quantity of apples from the United States. They are sold at any price at all, and they completely destroy Canada's opportunity of competing. The result is that Canadian apple production is always in a condition of complete uncertainty. If the Canadians were assured of a steady market there would be a larger production in Canada and a larger importation of Canadian apples than now, and the Canadian growers would be more prosperous. The present position is quite absurd as anyone who has had the privilege of visiting these three provinces—as I did, as a member of the Empire Parliamentary Association—must know. The other night the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said he could not understand why it was that cider apples were exempt. Anyone who has taken the trouble to study the subject would know that cider apples grow only in three countries—in this country, in France, which is more important, and in Spain to a less degree. Cider apples are not grown in any Empire country overseas. Therefore from the point of view of Imperial Preference it would be absurd to put a duty on them.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: They are grown in Australia.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Not to any material extent. At any rate they have not been successfully exported to this country. Information which I obtained a year ago showed that there were only three countries where there was an appreciable production available for cider making in this country. In a normal year the production of cider apples in this country is about half our requirements, but in a bad year it is only about one-tenth. It takes longer to bring a cider apple tree into bearing than any other apple tree. If there is a duty on cider apples then as you have to obtain a larger proportion of your requirements from abroad, the consumer pays the duty. He does not pay the duty when there is an effective and expanding tax-free supply. That is why the Government have exempted cider apples.
When you come to pears you get a different consideration. In the case of pears there is large competition with the British production from certain near-by Continental countries, and the duty on pears will be of material assistance to the United Kingdom. The period of consumption of home-grown pears and pears from near-by Continental countries is from the end of July till the end of October. During the rest of the year there is the importation from overseas, and the whole of that could be quite easily supplied by Empire countries. Why not? In connection with bananas, there was a time when practically the whole of our supplies came from foreign countries, but very great progress has been made by the British West Indies, and they are now supplying 10 times the quantity that they supplied before the War. If we only give the West Indies effective encouragement obviously we can increase our supplies from the West Indies instead of drawing them from Central America, and the West Indies are very much better customers for our products.
With regard to oranges, I think there is some substance in the criticisms that we heard. In a document which some of us prepared a little over a year ago we recommended a duty of 5s. a cwt., compared with the 3s. 6d. in the agreement that we are discussing. The period we recommended was from 1st May to 31st October. The period in the Agreement is
from 1st April to 30th November. In the existing circumstances this shorter period would have been wiser. I see no reason why the Government should not in due course represent to the Government of South Africa, the Dominion more particularly concerned, that it may be desirable to some extent to shorten the period for this special duty. During the rest of the year the 10 per cent. Import duty under the Import Duties Act will operate automatically. The principal Empire supply of oranges is from Palestine. Unfortunately, through the present interpretation under Mandate A under which we hold Palestine from the League of Nations, Palestine is regarded as being a foreign country for the purpose of most-favoured-nation treaties. I have always dissented from that interpretation. I think we are wrong. T think it is absurd that we should have all the responsibilities for defence and the preservation of good order in Palestine and yet be debarred from giving Palestinian products a preference, and that Palestine should be debarred from giving us a preference.
When we remember that Palestine is the largest Empire supplier of oranges it is rather a tragedy that at this moment we are prejudicing the future progress of Palestine to some extent. The matter calls for some examination, and I hope the Government will look into the point. I raised it in the discussion on the Import Duties Act. So long as Palestine is in effect part of the Empire I think Palestinian products ought to be treated in a different way. It is true that the situation is not quite as bad in respect of oranges as it might appear to be, because the bulk of the oranges are exported during that period to which this higher duty will not apply. Nevertheless the 10 per cent. duty still operates against the Palestinian orange. I am ventilating a legitimate grievance which exists both for this country and for Palestine through the interpretation of Class A Mandate.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: There was a flaw in the argument of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who made the point that these Agreements were all for the benefit of the Dominions and not for the benefit of anyone at home. Later the hon. Member produced a grouse that the Dominions
were deporting back to this country people who had been in Canada for 20 years. He did not correlate those deportations with these Agreements. My argument is that if these Agreements are going to be of benefit to the Dominions, surely they are going to bring more employment to the Dominions, and that will mean an immediate end of any deportations.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I will deal straight away with a point raised by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner), as to an application received by the Government from certain people interested in the fruit trade, that they should be allowed to send an adviser to help the British Delegation during the Ottawa Conference. That application was in fact that someone should go with the Delegation as an official adviser, presumably to be paid for by the taxpayer. Naturally it was quite impossible for the Government to take a host of advisers covering all the industries which might be concerned in the Ottawa discussions, and to do it at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. JANNER: I am rather sorry that the Under-Secretary has put his reply in that form. It would have been mote appropriate to have mentioned that fact to the National Federation of Fruit Trade Associations, so that they might have considered whether in the interests of the trade or of the consumers, or both, they could overcome that difficulty. I am sure they would have done so.

Mr. MacDONALD: My information is that a reply in that sense was sent to the federation at the time we received the application, that the reply to the federation was careful to point out that the Government were taking some official industrial advisers, and that the federation could send any information to and make any representations they might wish to these advisers so that their case might be considered fully. Furthermore, it was said many times in public during the summer that it was open to any federation or any industrial organisation in this country to send a representative to Ottawa at its own expense. I should have thought that that position was perfectly understood by the public generally and by the industries.

Mr. JANNER: I should be much obliged if the Under-Secretary would do me the service of letting me have, at a later stage, the letter of reply which indicated what he has stated, because unfortunately the reply I have in my possession does not contain the facts which he is giving now. I would like to convey his statement to those who have given me the information from another source.

Mr. MacDONALD: I have had the matter inquired into in the Department since it was raised to-day, and my information is to the effect that I have stated. It was public knowledge at the time, and everyone in the House knew, that industries and federations that were concerned were at liberty to send their own unofficial advisers to Ottawa at their own expense. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the comprehensive nature of the Amendment. It seeks to exclude from the Ottawa Agrements all reference to raw or fresh fruit. That would exclude apples, pears, bananas, oranges, grapefruit, plums, grapes, peaches and nectarines. As regards some of these fruits, there is no question at all either of the supplies coming into this country being interfered with or of retail prices to the consumer being raised.
5.0 p.m.
As regards some of these fruits, the consumers cannot possibly be at any disadvantage as a result of these Agreements operating. I was at pains to point out, when this subject was last discussed, that in the case of plums, for instance, the proposed new duty is to operate for a very limited period, during which almost our whole supplies come from South Africa. The operation of the duty is not intended to give South Africa any advantage against existing competitors, because in fact there are no existing competitors: but the duty has been put on in order to secure South Africa against any possible future competitors. The existing supplies, therefore, will not be interfered with, and there will be no change either in the quantity or the prices of those fruits coming in here. What applies to plums applies to certain other of the fruits covered by this Amendment. I take it, therefore, that although in some cases the consumer in this country cannot possibly lose by these Agreements, while the Dominions have a great deal to gain
by them, nevertheless the Opposition would wish to exclude that kind of Agreement from our Ottawa deliberations. For that reason alone, it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept this comprehensive and sweeping Amendment.
In the case of certain other fruits the position is not quite the same. The case of oranges has been mentioned. It is true in that case that imports from South Africa, for instance, compete with foreign supplies coming to this country, and it is the deliberate purpose of the proposed new duty on oranges to enable our Dominion suppliers to compete more successfully against foreign importers. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment said that the object of these proposals was to raise the wholesale price of these fruits. That is not the prime objective. The prime objective is not to raise the wholesale price, or we might have done something a great deal more drastic. The objective is to try to get for the Dominions a larger share of the existing market and it is on that matter of increased quantity, rather than increased price, that the Agreements concentrate so far as fruit is concerned.
One or two questions have been asked in the case of oranges. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) raised a point as to the dates in the Agreement and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) apparently assumed that the whole Committee agreed with him that a mistake had been made in that respect. He even included the occupants of the Front Bench among those who were, he suggested, ready to admit that a mistake had been made, and a ghastly mistake at that. The Government cannot admit, on the information given to them so far at any rate, that a mistake has been made in this matter. There is certainly some point in the criticism which has been made but, as against that, there is a certain reply to be given and I should like to tell the Committee what the Government had in view when they arranged that this preference should begin rather before the period when the supplies of oranges begin to come to this country from South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. The intention was to meet this situation. Supposing that just before the time when supplies from South Africa begin to arrive here in large
quantities, foreign shippers brought enormous supplies into this country, kept them in cold storage for a period, and then put them on to the market, in competition with the South African oranges, a little later in the year—perhaps a few weeks afterwards. If that situation developed then obviously the preference which had been deliberately put on to help South African oranges from the moment that South African oranges begin to come into this country, would prove ineffective. By a sort of forestalling, the preference, for a period of a good many weeks, would be rendered ineffective to help the South African producer. That is the reason which persuaded the Government to agree to the dates which have been put into the Agreement and they cannot admit, therefore, that any mistake has been made in that matter.
On the question of grapefruit, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel again seemed to think that we would admit without any argument that a great mistake had been made, in causing the proposed duty on grapefruit to operate throughout the year. He said that there were, I think, seven months in the year, or at any rate a good many months, when no grapefruit came into this country from the Empire at all. I am afraid it is the hon. Member who has made a mistake. It is true that grapefruit only come from South Africa during about five months of the year and that the original intention of the Government was to put an additional duty on just so as to secure that period of the market for South Africa. But then we were asked whether we could not do something to help the grapefruit which come to this country from the British West Indies and from Jamaica in particular. If my hon. Friend will look at the statistics published by the Empire Marketing Board of fruit supplies in 1931 he will find that there is not a month in the year in which supplies of grapefruit are not coming into this country from one part of the Empire or another.

Mr. JANNER: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish the Committee to come to any wrong conclusion. I have the actual figures here. In January, 1931, we imported from the British West Indies 3,000 cwts. out of a total of 45,000 cwts.; in February, 2,000 cwts. out of 51,000 cwts.; in March 4000 cwts. out of
52,000 cwts.; in April 1,000 cwts. out of 87,000 cwts. In May, we imported 1,000 cwts. from South Africa and none from the British West Indies out of a total of 94,000 cwts.; in June 11,000 cwts. from South Africa and 1,000 cwts. from the British West Indies out of 92,000 cwts.; in July, 19,000 cwts. from South Africa and 1,000 cwts. from the British West Indies out of 114,000 cwts. In August, 15,000 cwts. from South Africa and none from the British West Indies out of 67,000 cwts. In September 10,000 cwts. from South Africa, none from British West Indies out of a total of 81,000 cwts.; in October 8,000 cwts. from South Africa, 3,000 cwts. from the British West Indies out of 78,000:ewts. In November 1,000 cwts. from South Africa and 5,000 cwts. from the British West Indies out of 58,000 cwts., and in December none from South Africa and 14,000 cwts. from the British West Indies, out of 78,000 cwts

Mr. MacDONALD: I am astonished at the interruption because if my hon. Friend was aware of those figures, I cannot understand how he came to tell the Committee a few moments ago that during seven months of the year no grape fruit came to this country from the Empire. Had my hon. Friend not interrupted, I was about to say that I did not want to mislead the Committee or to suggest that the quantities coming in from the West Indies during these other months of the year are always enormous. It is true, as I was going to point out, that the quantities during part of that time are comparatively small. But that is the whole point, as I have already said, of these preferential arrangements—that we should try to encourage greater imports from those parts of the Empire concerned and endeavour to give the West Indies in the winter months, as well is South Africa in the other months, a larger share in the market here for grapefruit. That is the main object of all these provisions as regards raw and fresh fruit.

My hon. Friend the mover of the Amendment suggested that all the advantage was going to the Dominion producer, and that people in this country were going to get no advantage at all. That is an argument with which we cannot possibly agree. We contend that if we could get for Dominion producers a larger share of our home market, then the purchasing power of those producers, for our goods going to their countries, under the preferential arrangements contained in other parts of these Agreements, would be increased. Moreover, as far as apples at any rate are concerned, this duty is going to help the development of apple production in this country, and is calculated to increase employment on the land in this country. That point has been dealt with very effectively by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and it cannot be denied that our own people in this country are going to benefit, both directly and indirectly, by this part of the Ottawa Agreements. My hon. Friend raised one further point. He suggested that our canning industry was going to suffer under these, duties on foreign fruits. Whatever may be the complaints of this industry or that, the canning industry cannot complain about the Ottawa Agreements. It is true that a duty is put on against certain kinds of fruits coming into this country, but it is also true that in another part of the Agreements, our canning industry will receive a greater amount of Protection than hitherto, and that provision will more than make up for any possible disadvantage which might arise to the canning industry out of the matters which we are discussing at the moment. For the various reasons I have mentioned, the Government must resist the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 270.

Division No, 331.]
AYES.
[5.11 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Daggar, George
Hail, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, George H (Merthyr Tydvil)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Harris, Sir Percy


Batey, Joseph
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hicks, Ernest George


Bernays, Robert
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Hirst, George Henry


Briant, Frank
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Janner, Barnett


Cove, William G.
Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
John, William


Cowan, D. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grundy, Thomas W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen
White, Henry Graham


Lawson, John James
Pickering, Ernest H.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Logan, David Gilbert
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Lunn, William
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Mabane, William
Rea, Walter Russell



McEntee, Valentine L.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McGovern, John
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Thorne, William James



NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Levy, Thomas


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverpl, W.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lewis, Oswald


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elmley, Viscount
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera


Apsley, Lord
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Flint, Abraham John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bateman, A. L.
Fox, Sir Gifford
McKie, John Hamilton


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Manningham-Buffer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Ganzonl, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Meller, Richard James


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Haile
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Goff, Sir Park
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chiew'k)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Graves, Marjorie
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff. E.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Burnett, John George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hanley, Dennis A.
North, Captain Edward T.


Butler, Richard Austen
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Penny, Sir George


Castlereagh, Viscount
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hornby, Frank
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Christie, James Archibald
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Purbrick, R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pybus, Percy John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooke, Douglas
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Rt. Hon, Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsden, E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of
Rankin, Robert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Crossley, A. C.
James, Wing-Coin. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Ker, J. Campbell
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Remer, John R.


Denman, Hon. R D.
Knight, Holford
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Despencer-Robertson, Major.J. A. F.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Dickle, John P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Donner, P. W.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Robinson, John Roland


Doran, Edward
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duggan, Hubert John
Leckie, J. A.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lees-Jones, John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dunglass, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter




Runge, Norah Cecil
Storey, Samuel
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wells, Sydney Richard


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Summersby, Charles H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sutcliffe, Harold
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Scone, Lord
Tate, Mavis Constance
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thompson, Luke
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Todd, A. L, S. (Kingswinford)
Withers, Sir John James


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Womersley, Walter James


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Train, John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S`v'oaks)


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)



Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Sir Victor Warrender and Major




George Davies.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after the word "agreements," to insert the words:
(except in so far as they relate to linseed, cod liver oil, castor oil, linseed oil, coconut oil, ground-nut oil, rape oil, sesamum oil).
When a similar Amendment was considered in this House a week ago, the Debate centred almost entirely upon the effect upon imported cod liver oil of the imposition of this duty instead of the general 10 per cent. ad valorem duty which was imposed under the Import Duties Act of 1930. The effect of this duty on invalids who have to take quantities of this oil was then impressed upon the House and quotations were taken from the "Lancet" to point out the effect that an increase in the price of this commodity was likely to have upon a number of the poorer people who have to take this oil. This medicine is in use in almost every working-class household in this country, especially where there are young children, and local authorities spend considerable sums in purchasing bulk supplies for hospitals and sanatoria. These authorities are concerned as to the increase in price which will result from this new imposition, and they consider that they ought not to be asked to pay an increased price for this commodity for the purpose of encouraging the cod fishing and cod liver oil industry in Newfoundland.
When this matter was last considered there was some controversy as to whether Newfoundland could supply the requirements of this country. It was then pointed out that of the 500,000 gallons of oil consumed in this country, about 20,000 came from Newfoundland and 475,000 from Norway. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H.
Williams), when it was pointed out that one-thirtieth of this oil came from Newfoundland, asked that the figures for 1928 should be given, and later he pointed out that in that year Newfoundland supplied just one out of 2½ times the requirements of this country. In any case, last year and at the present time, it is true to say that Newfoundland only provided something like one-thirtieth of the requirements of this country.
Mr. Gamble, a director of Messrs. Allen and Hanbury, a well-known firm, in a letter to the "Times," dated 8th October of this year, pointed out that his company had been manufacturers of cod liver oil since 1860 in this country and in Norway, and formerly in Newfoundland. He said:
The quantity of medicinal cod liver oil produced in this country is negligibly small and cannot he increased to any considerable extent.
He pointed out with very great force that the cost of production of cod liver oil in Newfoundland is much higher than in Norway, owing to surrounding circumstances, and he also said that Newfoundland cod liver oil is sold to the United States of America and Canada at a cost that is 50 per cent. higher than that of Norwegian oil in this country. The preference that we are discussing, arising out of the Ottawa Agreements, takes the form of a flat rate per gallon, equivalent, so Mr. Gamble said, to about 40 per cent. on the value of medicinal cod liver oil and about 60 per cent. on the lower grade used for animal feeding purposes.
I am not going to deal with the effect of this increased price, which, in our opinion, is inevitable, upon those children and adults for whose ailments doctors
prescribe cod liver oil. That matter was very fully dealt with last Monday, but we shall take every possible opportunity of doing our utmost to prevent the enforcement of this duty. It may be called an imposition upon the invalid and the cripple, and the Government have no right to impose this duty upon that type of person for the purpose of encouraging or increasing the cod fishing and the cod liver oil industry in Newfoundland. There is another aspect dealing with the consumption of cod liver oil in this country which appears to be almost entirely overlooked, and that is the effect of this increased price on cattle feeding oils, for a very large quantity of this commodity is used for the feeding of cattle, poultry, and swine. It is the lower grade, the cattle grade, that is so used, and there is a considerable quantity which will have to bear this tax. The incidence of this tax upon large quantities is very striking. This duty represents 33s. 4d. on a 24-gallon barrel, or 53s. 4d. on a 40-gallon barrel. This cost will certainly have to be borne by the consumer or by the agricultural community, and with the National Government and the Conservative party priding themselves always as the friends of the agricultural interests, one is rather surprised that this aspect was not taken into consideration when this Agreement was being negotiated at Ottawa.
5.30 p.m.
The duty must result in an increase in the price of this commodity. The hon. Member for South Croydon on Monday last pointed out that the amount of duty was only 4d. a quart, as though that meant nothing. Fourpence a quart is 2d. a pint, and as 2d. will have to be imposed on every pint purchased, it must mean that a pint of cod liver oil will cost at least 2d. more than it formerly cost, before the 10 per cent. duty and this duty were imposed. In almost every protected country in the world, cod liver oil is admitted duty free, and we are the only country of any magnitude where there is a duty imposed upon it. Even the United States of America has no such duty, and I am rather surprised, as I say, that the Government should seek to impose it, simply to encourage, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said, when replying to the Debate last week, what he considered to be a very hard-pressed industry in New-
foundland. He and the Government are prepared to increase the duty upon those poor people who have to take this medicinal cod liver oil. The Amendment does not deal only with cod liver oil. It deals with linseed oil. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon is not present while we are discussing this Amendment, for if there is a high priest of Protection in this country, he is the hon. Member. It is strange because a little lower on the Order Paper the hon. Member's name is attached to an Amendment in which he asks that the duty shall not apply to linseed. Had he been present, we should have asked him to support our Amendment. My friends and I are concerned about the effect of this day. I have been looking through the returns, and I find that the amount of linseed imported into this country last year was something like 340,000 tons or thereabouts. Of that amount 312,000 tons came from the Argentine. Only 15,000 tons came from the Empire, and that was from India. In the first nine months of 1932, the Argentine imported into this country 263,000 tons, whereas British India sent only 5,000 tons and other countries 4,600 tons. There is thus a very large amount to be taxed for the sake of the very small amount which conies from British India.
I would like to know whether the Government took into account the likely effect of the taxation of linseed upon the industries in this country in which linseed is a large raw material. Take the linoleum industry. I have been informed that that industry is very largely dependent upon linseed. If that be so, did the Government take into account the possible effect upon it? It must be remembered that the linoleum industry is an important industry in this country and the one industry in which there has not been a large falling off in exports. For the first nine months of 1931 the exports were about 7,000,000 square yards. For the first nine months in 1932 the exports were almost equal to that amount. Other hon. Members are more competent to deal with the effects of this tax upon linseed than I am, and they are going to take part in the Debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson). I would like to read a quotation from the letter which was sent
to the "Manchester Guardian" of the 22nd August this year by Councillor F. Till, who is actively identified with the seed-crushing industry in Hull. We must remember that Hull is the largest seed-crushing centre in the world, and Mr. Till is a director of the British Extractor Company, Limited. He said:
It looks to me as though Dutch and foreign crushers of linseed will get a very big advantage over British crushers as they will be able to get their seeds from all over the world free of duty, while we in this country, to help India with her comparatively small crop, will have to pay full prices unless a considerable compensating duty is placed on landed oil from Holland. The consequences to Hull might be very serious. The Argentine shipments of linseed for the current year have been 1,376,000 tons as against only 46,000 tons from India, and the price of River Plate linseed has been £8 17s. 6d. per ton while Indian has cost approximately £11 a ton.
I would ask hon. Members who want to see this industry encouraged to support us in the Lobby in this Amendment. I will not deal with the other oils which are mentioned in the Amendment. One could deal at some length with castor oil from the point of view both of its medicinal use and its use as a lubricating oil, the use of which is growing in this country as a result of the development of the aeroplane. That and the other oils ought not to be asked to bear this duty.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I find myself in a difficult position in rising to speak on this Amendment, because I consider that it is a mistake to put down an Amendment which incorporates both raw materials and manufactured oils. The Amendment includes linseed, which is essentially a raw material. We then have fish oil, which has no bearing whatever upon oil-bearing seeds, that is to say castor oil, linseed oil, coconut oil, ground-nut oil, rape oil, and sesamum oil. All these oils are crushed or extracted from oil-bearing seeds. I am against the Amendment so far as it includes oils because, as we are a manufacturing country, and one of the largest seed-crushing countries in the world, it naturally follows that the seed-crushing industry should be protected from manufactured oils coming into the country. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) referred to castor oil. Let me
inform him that practically all the castor beans grown in the world are grown in and exported to this country from British possessions. Therefore the tax on castor oil, while having very little effect, will be all to the advantage of this country.
With regard to linseed I want to give a set of figures to demonstrate the result of the 10 per cent. import duty imposed last March on the oil corning into this country. The result of the tax has been to give the linseed crushing industry of this country a great impetus. For once we have been able to see the possibility of crushing linseed in this country at a profit. That is due entirely to the fact that the imposition of a 10 per cent. duty has kept out the foreign manufactured oil. I will give a set of figures to prove this. In January of this year, 1,681 tons of linseed oil were imported. In February the figure was 5,123 tons. The duty came into force on 1st March, and it resulted in a considerable decline. In March the imports were only 740 tons; April, 113; May, 213; June, 405; and July, 230. The tremendous advantage which this country is securing owing to the imposition of that 10 per cent. duty will therefore be seen.
The main reason for my rising is to deal with the 10 per cent. import duty on linseed. Linseed, unlike linseed oil, is a raw material of the greatest importance in this country and the case for allowing linseed to remain on the Free List is unanswerable. The industry regards this imposition with dismay and considerable misgivings as to where it will finally lead. It will result in a large number of people being thrown out of work. Linseed is a raw material which is subject to crushing by hydraulic pressure and to an extracting process, the resultant products of which are linseed cake and linseed oil which are used for feeding cattle, and linseed oil which is used in connection with a large number of important industries. I want specially to point out that linseed is not grown in any quantity except in the Argentine and India. India is unable to supply the quantity required by this country. What is more important is that linseed grown in India is of an entirely different quality from the linseed grown in the Argentine. The oil extracted from it is of a different character; it contains a higher percentage of oil and it has a special value.
I can remember no time in the last 30 years, during which I have had some experience in this industry, when Indian linseed was at a price comparable with that of the Argentine. The linseed grown in India invariably commands a price of from 15s. to £2 a ton above that grown in the Argentine. I will quote the prices of linseed to-day. Anyone who cares to look at this morning's papers will see that the price of linseed delivered to London from Calcutta is £10 13s. 9d.; from Bombay, £11 16s. 3d.; whereas the price of linseed from the Argentine is £8 17s. 6d. per ton, or nearly 23 per ton more. It must be perfectly obvious to the Committee that Indian linseed does not compete, as it never has competed and under no circumstances ever will compete in price with that of the Argentine, because it is of a higher quality and contains a higher percentage of oil, and on that account commands a higher price in the world's market. Further, India is unable to grow the quantity of linseed that this country requires. India has never been able to supply this country with all it needs. Last year the total imports of Indian linseed amounted to less than 5 per cent. of the total quantity of linseed which we require and which was imported into the United Kingdom. In 1928 the Argentine exported 2,032,000 tons of linseed and India exported 173,000 tons. In 1929 the amount exported from the Argentine was 1,691,000 tons, compared with 254,000 tons from India. In 1930 the Argentine exported 1,249,000 and India 265,000 tons. In 1921 the Argentine exported 1,983,000 tons and India 114,000 tons. As to linseed exported to this country, in 1930 the Argentine sent 140,000 tons and India 74,000 tons. In 1931 the Argentine exported to this country 312,000 tons and India 16,000 tons. For the first six months of this year the Argentine sent here 167,000 tons and India only 3,800 tons. Therefore, it will be seen how dependent we are upon the Argentine for our supplies.
May I direct attention to yet another point? Linseed is one of the most delicate of the oil seed-bearing plants. Those who know anything about linseed or have travelled in India or the Argentine must know, by their own experience, that a whole area of linseed ready for cutting can be destroyed in half an hour.
I am speaking with real knowledge, because, to my sorrow, I have seen tens of thousands of acres of linseed just ready for cutting completely destroyed—rendered quite valueless—in less than half-an-hour. I ask the Committee what is going to be our position if we allow this great industry here to be dependent upon India alone for linseed? Conversely, if we were to place ourselves unreservedly in the hands of the Argentine, and have no other source of supply to fall back upon, the position would be equally grave. The reason why linseed was put upon the Free List last March was that the Empire supplies were regarded as inadequate to meet British demands. There is no difference in the position to-day; indeed, there is more reason to-day why the proposed imposition should not be placed upon linseed from the Argentine. The figures which I have given show clearly that India is not in a position to meet our requirements. Where should we have been this year if we had had to put up with 3,800 tons only from India?
Under the arrangements made with the Dominions whereby preferences are to be given to them, there has always been a. proviso in other cases that the Dominion concerned could offer adequate supplies at world prices. That is not so with India and linseed. When we were discussing copper the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the duty to be imposed was accompanied by the express condition that Empire producers must be able to supply the needs of consumers in this country, and at world prices. Surely there is a ease for linseed to be put on precisely the same terms. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replying to the Debate upon wheat, said:
Unless the supply from the Dominions allows the consumer to have wheat at the world price and in sufficient quantity he will not have to pay any duty on foreign wheat at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1932; col. 706, Vol. 269.]
I would also refer to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) when he moved the following Amendment:
In line 41, at the end, to add the words '(d) shall provide that any duty imposed under the provisions of the said Act shall be removed if at any time producers of the commodity affected by the duty are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on
first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of United Kingdom consumers.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1932; col. 777, Vol. 269.]
I submit that the terms of that Amendment would meet the case of the seed-crushing industry in this country, and, quite frankly, I can see no objection to such a provision in connection with any raw materials, because unless the Dominions and Colonies are able to assure us that they can give us the quantities we require and compete in the world market then, in so far as our raw materials are concerned, we shall become an importing nation of manufactured commodities instead of a nation importing raw materials and shipping the manufactured products abroad.
I do not want to weary the Committee, but this is a matter of so much importance that I feel it to be my duty to cover the ground fully. I do not think the Committee appreciate the fact that India has a duty of 25 per cent. upon linseed oil going into India. That means to say that while India can send her linseed oil into this country free, we are prevented from sending our linseed oil into India. With this new duty in force India will be able to an increasing extent to crush her own linseed, and will have a market here for her linseed oil and her linseed cake. At the present time India is shipping to this country something like 30,000 tons of linseed cake a year. Now we are going to make her a present not only of the opportunity of supplying this country with linseed cake, but also with linseed oil. If she has a free market here in which to dump her linseed oil she will be placed in an advantageous position to the detriment of our crushers at home. An hon. Member referred to cod liver oil and said there was no country of any importance in the world which imposed a duty upon it. I want to tell the Committee that there is no country in the world, including the high protective country of America, which imposes a duty upon the raw material linseed, nor has any country at any time imposed a duty upon this raw material.
What will be the result of the 10 per cent. import duty in this country? It will mean that the Continent, and in particular I would refer to Belgium and Holland,
will be in a position to purchase linseed at the lowest world price, and having, as they have at their own doors, a ready market for the sale of their linseed cakes, they will be able to dump their linseed oil on our shores in spite of the 15 per cent. duty. If we are to pay 10 per cent. above the world price for linseed, how is it possible for this industry to remain on our shores? Obviously, we shall become an importing nation for manufactured linseed oil and linseed cake. The linseed crushing industry which employs thousands of hands and has a considerable bearing upon many other industries will be severely handicapped. Take the paint, linoleum and varnish industries alone. Our exports from this country have averaged approximately £5,000,000 a year during the last three years. Those industries will be severely penalised.
6.0 p.m.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I hope that my action in supporting this Amendment will not be interpreted as showing any lack of sympathy with India or Indian interests. That is far from my thoughts. I do so because I believe frankly, with my knowledge of the industry that this tax will be of no benefit whatever to India. I would go further and say that I cannot believe there is anyone in India who knows anything about the industry who would attempt to put up a case in favour of the imposition here of a 10 per cent. duty upon linseed. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could assure me that anyone at Ottawa representing the Indian Government with a full knowledge of this industry did in fact put up a case for this duty. I would like to know also whether there was at Ottawa anyone who knew anything about the industry at all, or whether there was anyone who was serving the interests of agriculturists in India. I say that, not because I have no sympathy with the agriculturists in India, but because I am convinced that the agriculturist in India knows his business so well that he would never ask for the imposition of a tax like this, which has no bearing upon India and which will not in any way assist her to compete in price against a lower class of seed, namely, the Argentine seed. If this imposition were withdrawn, it would not in any way be detrimental to Indian interests. If this were put to India through the right channels, I believe that India would
agree that this tax is of no advantage to her, and that it should be withdrawn. I have not heard a single argument advanced in this Committee in its favour. From my knowledge of the subject, I submit that no argument can possibly be advanced.
I also say, with all due deference to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that throughout these discussions—and I think I have heard almost all the speeches that have been made on the Ottawa Conference—it is significant that neither he, the Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer have, so far as I am aware, made any reference whatever to linseed. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade did make some reference to it, but while it is not possible for me to interpret any expressions which may fall from his lips. I must confess that I did feel that there was a certain amount of sympathy in those expressions—or, shall I say, from the expressions which he did not put forward, because I believe that he felt that his case was so poor that the quicker he got through the Debate and got the Division over, the better.
I should not feel that I was doing my duty unless I submitted to the Government the alternatives which are open to them to save this industry in its entirety. Obviously, the first is that linseed should be permitted to enter the United Kingdom free of any duty whatsoever, a position that it has always enjoyed in the past, and which, in every other country in the world, it enjoys to-day. The only other alternatives would be to prohibit the importation of linseed oil and linseed cake, or to impose a prohibitive tariff of probably about 35 per cent. If that were done, it would affect and prejudice seriously our export trade, unless an agreement were also effected whereby a drawback were given upon the products which were exported from this country.
I would submit that the Government should first consider very seriously whether it would not be advisable, in view of what I have said, that India should be approached to see whether or not they would be willing to accept the withdrawal of linseed. If I could have assurances from responsible authorities that India demanded this protection, I
would say that we must consider the other alternative, namely, the imposition of a tax upon linseed oil and linseed cake imported into this country, with a drawback system on our exports. Failing that, we must resign ourselves to lose one of the most important industries in the United Kingdom.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. In view of the speech that has just been made, I want to ask whether it will be possible for the Committee to take a decision on this Amendment, as it stands. It embodies the raw material side by side with manufactured articles. It would he far better if the Amendment could be submitted in a way so that the voices of the Committee might be taken on the subject of linseed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): That is no longer possible. If the question had been raised before the Amendment had been proposed from the Chair, it would have been possible, but the Amendment has now been proposed as a whole to the Committee.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We should be prepared to withdraw all the words that follow the word "linseed" in order to get a discussion on that subject, and a. decision.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would like to point out that one hon. Member has already spoken on cod liver oil.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better if the Debate continued as it commenced.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Anybody who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) could not but be convinced that he made out an unanswerable case. If we had a free Parliament where we could vote according to our consciences, or according to our reason, undoubtedly linseed would be omitted from the Schedule. No Ministers even bother to speak on this subject, and I do not blame them, because their hands are tied. They say, frankly, that it does not matter what the House of Commons does or says, however strong the arguments and however much it is proved that industries might be injured or the country as a whole suffer from some of the proposed duties. The duties cannot be altered. I have a great respect
for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Nobody questions his ability and capacity. He is convinced, I am sure of it, and I am sure that he is not going to try—I am certain that he will not succeed—to answer according to his convictions. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that his conviction is that the whole of these duties should be taken en bloc. Therefore he will have to resist Amendments. He is a member of the Government, and he has no right to do otherwise. He has none of that feeling of elasticity that some of my hon. Friends had. He will have to get up and put the best case he can against the expert and unanswerable case put by the hon. Member for Ealing, although the hon. Member spoke from real knowledge of the industry. I could have paralleled every word he said not in regard to one industry but in regard to several other industries. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) made out a case for the linoleum industry. He said, when we were discussing this matter in the early hours one morning last week:
Linseed oil crushed from Argentine linseed is our biggest and most expensive raw material."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1932; col. 766; Vol. 269.]
He said: "My industry must suffer": but the interests of India were at stake, so he willingly offered his industry at the altar of Ottawa.
I have taken the trouble to ask other persons interested in the linoleum industry, persons I regret to say who were not quite so jingo, shall I say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline. They pointed out to me that they are large employers of labour and that this tax must seriously jeopardise the interests of their trade. They had to look after their interests and they believed that they have no right, in order to wave the Union Jack, deliberately to sacrifice the wellbeing of an industry which is, like every other industry, going through a very hard time, and is suffering from severe competition in neutral markets, competing with countries that have the advantage of untaxed linseed. We have no right to put this imposition, for such it is, on an important industry.
Then there are the interests of the paint and varnish trade. They are large trades with factories scattered all over the
country, competing in neutral markets with untaxed raw material and with other countries manufacturing similar articles. The exports of prepared paint in 1931 ran into £1,000,000. Paints in the form of colour and powder were £750,000; varnish, 2500,000; and linoleum £1,750,000. These are very big interests. If we were a Parliament doing our duty to our constituents, we would not sacrifice them without explanation being given to us of what happened at Ottawa to persuade the Government to make this concession to India. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Ealing that no case has been made out to put this tax upon such a big industry in order to help India. I am the last person to do anything to jeopardise Indian interests. I understand that our delegates were very busy at Ottawa and had to find some article to tax in order to give a preference to India. Probably at the last moment, after hours of discussion, this article was singled out.
During these Debates, English agriculture seems to have been sacrificed. Nobody seems prepared to put up a really strong case, but there is a very strong case for the users of cattle cake. There is very little protection for agriculture in these proposals. We are selecting an article that will indirectly impose a tax upon agriculture through the increased price of oil cake. I think this Committee should say clearly to the Government that Parliament was elected for the one purpose of looking after the interests of the people as a whole, and that we are not entitled lightly to neglect those powers.
These are not duties that are being made for one year, like an ordinary tax. They are not for next year or the year after, but they are duties for five years. Parliament's hands are tied for five years. There will be more severe competition because of the tax, and people will be thrown out of work. We shall have to say to India: "We are very sorry, but this is an agreement with the Dominions, and this duty cannot be removed." Last March this article was deliberately put on the Free List. After long discussion, it was decided that an unanswerable case could be made out for its being on the Free List. That being so, unless the Parliamentary Secretary can show very good reasons—I hope he will put forward a very much stronger case than he did on the last occasion—the House of
Commons should show that it is a free House, that it is not tied, but is able to use its discretion, and, even at the risk of worrying the Government and sending them back to Ottawa, should decline to assent to this proposal.

Mr. J. WALLACE: I listened with very great attention to the robust eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). He is always prepared to give his services in the interests of the oppressed and downtrodden, and he has not failed in that role this afternoon. [Interruption.] It does him great honour. I want to correct one misapprehension on the part of my hon. Friend. It is perfectly true that I spoke in the Debate on this subject last week, but I want to emphasise the fact that at that time I spoke as an individual Member of Parliament, and not as representing any trade interest whatsoever. It is very important that I should state that point of view, because it was certainly inferential in my hon. Friend's observations that I was speaking as representing here a certain industry, and I wish to disabuse his mind of any idea of that kind. I also listened to my hon. Friend opposite with the greatest possible interest. He spoke with expert knowledge which certainly is not at my disposal on this very important question, and I was very much impressed with the case that he stated to the Committee. His attitude of mind now is very much what my own attitude was when I first read the Ottawa Agreement. That, again, I explained to the House last week.
What caused me to change my opinion—I may have changed it wrongly, but I adhere to what I have said—was the existence of compensating elements on the other side of the Agreement. I am not prepared to say for a moment that this concession on linseed is going to do the Indian linseed trade any particular good; that, possibly, is a matter more for my hon. Friend than for me; but it was a message at least, which the Indian delegation could take to Indian agriculturists, that certain concessions were now being granted and there was a chance for the further development of the linseed industry in that country. What did we get in exchange for that? If I am rightly informed, we have got, for the first time in the history of our relations with India, an economic preference on a very wide
range of commodities, which possibly will mean—I must not mention any figure—a very large increase indeed in the export of manufactured goods from this country to India. I believe that that will be the case. But I do not view without concern the suggested effect upon the linseed trade in this country which was outlined in my hon. Friend's speech. That is more or less what is in my own mind, but the trouble is this, that, so far as I understand the Ottawa Agreement, it is signed, sealed and delivered, and we have no chance in this House of making any alteration whatever in that Agreement. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the cheers behind me are cheers of approval or otherwise, but, at any rate, if they indicate indignation, it appears to be a very good-natured kind of indignation. In any case, we are up against that hard fact, and I believe in making the best of things as they are. For that reason I wish to mention in a very definite manner a subject which I raised last week in connection with this tax upon linseed—it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend opposite—and that is the question of a drawback upon goods exported from this country. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that he omitted to answer my question upon that subject last week——

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Entirely by accident.

Mr. WALLACE: I am quite sure that it was entirely by accident, but I should like to have the answer to it, if I may be allowed to say so, in a somewhat specific manner. This duty on linseed makes this country practically the only country in the world in which a duty has to be paid upon linseed. We, as manufacturers, are competing in the neutral markets of the world with foreign countries like Germany and America, where no duty whatever is paid upon linseed, and, if we are to maintain our export trade, it is essential that we should be protected against our competitors who are in a better position by means of a drawback upon the content of linseed oil in any particular export consignment. I do not think it is quite enough for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me that machinery is in existence which possibly
can be harnessed to this particular Measure. I should like to see a definite Clause in the Bill providing for a drawback. Otherwise, while I accept this Measure as being the best that can be done in the circumstances, it is perfectly hopeless if we neglect the interests of our export trade, and I most seriously and earnestly urge my hon. Friend to make such representations as will make it possible for a new Clause to be introduced into the Bill when it finally comes before the House of Commons.

Mr. MALLALIEU: In rising to support this Amendment, I propose to confine my remarks to cod liver oil. I would like to assure the Committee that I do not propose merely to reiterate arguments which have been used on this subject before, but rather to deal with suggestions which were put forward when the matter was discussed at a previous stage. It would be impertinent of me were I to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), but I would like to say that I associate myself with everything that he said on the question of the rise in the price of cod liver oil, which, as we see it, must follow the Agreement which is being embodied in this Bill. We on these benches feel particularly keenly in regard to this matter, because it was under a Liberal administration, just before the War, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was President of the Local Government Board, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Chancellor of the Exchequer—it was under that Liberal administration, which did more for progress and for the working people of this country than any other Government has ever done in this country, that the infant welfare centres and clinics were put upon their feet, and when a grant of half their expenses was made by the Treasury. We know how much they depend upon cod liver oil, and what an enormous quantity of it they use, and we are extremely sad that this Measure, going back upon that action, should be piloted through the House of Commons by one who bears the name of Liberal.
It was suggested on a previous occasion that all the supply of cod liver oil that this country needs could be produced
within the Empire. The two sources, presumably, within the Empire were Newfoundland and this country. With regard to Newfoundland, it may be true that the quantity can be produced. I am not going to reiterate all that was said before as to the quality of that oil, but I would just remind the Committee that its quality is utterly unacceptable to the British market in view of its most unattractive taste, its smell, and its discolouration. With regard to the possible production in this country of a sufficient quantity to meet the market, it was admitted by those who put forward that suggestion that British trawlers which at present bring livers to this country to be boiled have not as yet installed the necessary apparatus——

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Some have.

Mr. MALLALIELU: But not in any quantity that matters to this House—they have not installed the necessary apparatus for boiling livers in the boats sufficiently near to the catching to make the oil fit for medicinal purposes. Therefore, even on that argument, there must he some delay, and, while that delay continues, there roust be some restriction of the supply in this country. I submit to this Committee that any restriction, however problematical, however slight, would be something which the Committee would be very well advised to avoid.
If I may say so, when representatives. of the Government are dealing with criticisms of this Bill, and particularly criticisms directed to show that the price of a given commodity would rise, their-usual formula has been to say, "Oh, but the rise will be insignificant." It would appear that absolutely no regard has been had to the aggregate effect if there are heaps of small rises in prices, and it seems also to be quite forgotten that a time of falling prices is also a time of falling wages, and that small things in the aggregate mount up very considerably. In this particular case, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade came forward with the rather surprising answer that he had no evidence-that the price of cod liver oil in this country would rise. With what neophytic zeal he is carrying through his duties in the House! Surely it would have been very much more appropriate for even a
former Free Trader to have striven to show that there was no evidence that the price would not rise.
It must be perfectly plain—I state this categorically—to every Member of the House that the price of this article will rise. I state that dogmatically. There is evidence before almost every Member of the House, that the price is at the present moment rising. I should like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary a particular case. It concerns a place in a Parliamentary division which I think will not be unknown to the Foreign Secretary, with whom the Parliamentary Secretary is not unconnected. At Cleckheaton, in the Spen Valley division, there is actually this notice in the co-operative store—an organisation which exists for no other purpose than to put before the people in that part of the country the goods they need as cheaply as they can be sold. The notice is as follows:
Your attention, please! As the result of the Ottawa Conference, Norwegian Cod Liver Oil has greatly advanced in price. We, in anticipation of this increased price, purchased before the increase considerable quantities of new season's Cod Liver Oil, which we can offer to our members at the old price.
6.30 p.m.
Ordinary business prudence has been exercised by those responsible for that store. I would draw attention to the fact that already the price has very materially increased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In this country, and there is a perfectly good example of in the Spen Valley Division. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that point. He talked in the previous stage of the discrepancy between the wholesale and retail price, but he absolutely failed to show how it is that the increase in first cost should suddenly snake the middlemen wish to accept lower charges for their services. It would be extremely to the point if he would say how this is going to take place. By just putting a tax on the raw material, how will it take place that there will be in any way a decreasing of that discrepancy? Surely all experience is exactly to the contrary, and that a profit is required even on the duty. I ask hon Members not to walk through the Lobby as mere machines without any power of thought. I know many Members who have considerable
power of thought, and I have no doubt at all that they have been exercising that power recently and must know of the ill effects of this proposed Measure upon people who really cannot afford to suffer any more. I ask them to consider very seriously before walking through like so many automatic machines, had they not better vote against the Government if the Government are not prepared to make any concession?

Sir BASIL PETO: I hope the Committee will forgive me for returning from cod liver oil to the proposed duty on the raw material of the seed-crushing industry—linseed. I am sure all Protectionist Members will agree with me that it is entirely contrary to all the practice in Protectionist countries, which have the advantage of scientific tariffs, to put duties upon raw materials, and in proof of that we have just been told, what I personally knew before, that there is no other country in the world that puts a duty upon this raw material. Therefore, we are handicapping an industry which has an export trade of over £3,500,000 a year. That same industry is not handicapped in any other country and therefore it is not surprising that those of us who are Protectionists should from the Protectionist point of view, object to this duty just as much as those who are Free Traders. It appears to me that the disadvantage to British industry is out of all proportion to any possible advantage that can be gained by the Indian linseed growers.
The amount of linseed imported from India is almost trifling. It amounts only to about a twentieth part, and it is clear that, by putting a 10 per cent. duty upon the nineteen-twentieths of our imports, we are going to raise the price of the raw material by practically the whole amount of the duty. If we do that, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) says, "What about the farmers?" Will not someone say something from the point of view of agriculture as to the effect of this upon linseed cake? I do not think there is going to be any very immediate effect upon the price of linseed cake, because the rest of the world which is crushing linseed is necessarily making linseed cake as well as linseed oil, and already has a surplus of linseed cake for export to this country, although we are making linseed
cake at present out of the untaxed raw material. Last year I understand that the importation from foreign countries, mainly the United States and India, was in the neighbourhood of 80,000 or 90,000 tons and, as all the rest of the world will still be using a tax free raw material, there will be plenty of competition between other countries and the real effect will be that we are going to kill the home industry which is at present supplying a very large part of our farmers' supplies and hand it over to our competitors abroad.
It may be asked, "If you feel so strongly about it, if you feel that this is from the point of view of Protectionists a stupid tax, how can you justify voting for it, or not voting against it?" But, however much we dislike it, we have to look at it as part of a complete scheme. I beg the Under-Secretary, however, to consider very seriously the question of the effect upon this export trade—and it is a very important one, over £3,500,000 a year—not counting anything that we may export in linseed cakes—linoleum, paints and varnishes. In that alone we are liable to sacrifice, because we enormously handicap our industry, either the whole or the major part of it, and we can only get out of that in the way the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) suggests, by a drawback equivalent to the whole effect of the duty and, if it is to be a drawback only upon our main exports of these manufactured articles like linoleum and linseed oil, it will not really undo the whole of the mischief, because there is still the question of the linseed cake, which is almost entirely consumed at home, and we shall get no drawback on that linseed cake which goes to feed the animals in our own agricultural industry which is at present so terribly hard hit by foreign competition.
I do not believe that my main proposition will be disputed from the Front Bench, that this is a stupid tax which we should never have dreamt of imposing either as Free Traders or Protectionists, and it is bound to injure our interests. We put it on as a sop to placate Indian feeling and induce a friendly attitude to our exports of other things. We know that all the representatives of India at
Ottawa were able to tell their compatriots when they got back that they bad not made a single concession which could injure any Indian interest, so why was it necessary for our delegates to make a concession which may possibly destroy a very important trade?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I want to endorse as strongly as I can the appeal of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), that some steps should be taken by means of a drawback to deal with the very serious situation which may otherwise arise in the important manufacturing industries which are based upon linseed. Among the miscellaneous enactments that are applied to the Bill is Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1932, under which it is open to any industry to make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committees for a scheme whereby a drawback may be applied in certain circumstances. That Section, together with Sub-sections (4) and (5) of this Clause, make it clear that the Import Duties Advisory Committee can examine the duties on an application for a drawback. But the Import Duties Advisory Committee is overwhelmed with work at the moment. An enormous mass of applications has gone to the committee, which was inevitable in the early days, and it is very much overworked, and it is obvious that in the ordinary way any application must have to wait a considerable time before it can be examined unless exceptional steps are taken and, as what we are now doing is not a normal process for the purpose of protecting British industry but is for the purpose of developing Imperial trade, and outside our ordinary industrial Protection, I think it is the plain duty of the Government to take some more prompt step than that represented by Section 9 of the Finance Act.
It is not adequate and not fair to an important manufacturing industry to have the matter left in the position that an industry shall submit a scheme, if it is approved the Committee shall make a recommendation to the Treasury and then, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer approves, the Lord Commissioners will sign the necessary order. Many weeks or months will elapse before that pro-
cedure has been gone through in existing circumstances. If the duty had been running for three or four years, the matter might be different, but at this moment the Committee is overwhelmed with work and it is not right that we should prejudice a very important manufacturing industry by delay. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make the strongest representation to the members of the Cabinet, whose absence I again deplore, even though I know how preoccupied they are, that this matter shall be dealt with by a new Clause either in Committee or on Report. I think its importance justifies it.
With regard to cod liver oil, I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), because I was refreshing myself with the Ceylon product. I understand he reproved me for my absence and I apologise to him. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) said he was not going to repeat old arguments. He had a very good reason for that, because the arguments he produced last time were so bad that it was obviously necessary to produce better ones. He discussed the question of boiling cod livers on trawlers and implied that that was not done. I have here an interesting descriptive leaflet of an important cod liver oil factory at Aberdeen that was founded in 1904. It says that livers are collected from the fishing boats and inshore trawlers and boiled for the production of North Sea cod liver oil. That is one sort of production. Considerable quantities are always boiled on trawlers while at sea with special boilers of Allen and Hanbury's design. There is a definite declaration by one of the most celebrated firms that they are, in fact, doing that which the hon. Member for Colne Valley says is not done. They boom this and say what good cod liver oil it is. They draw attention to its merits and to the report of the Empire Marketing Board of the merits of North Sea cod liver oil.
We are told by the hon. Member for Colne Valley that Newfoundland oil is -not good enough for the purpose. Let us come down to it. Two or three years ago Professor Drummond, of University College, London, and Professor Hilditch of the University of Liverpool, were invited by the Empire Marketing Board to make an authoritative report on supplies -of cod liver oil in the British Empire.
In page 114 of this report its authors wrote as follows, and I hope that all hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this subject will take very careful note, and not least the members of the Cleckheaton Co-operative Society:
At the present moment, a considerable proportion of the cod liver oil sold in this country is of relatively low medicinal value, largely because the pharmaceutical trade has a preference for the pale oils—mainly of Norwegian origin. In some cases, these oils are sold with a guarantee of vitamin activity that is virtually worthless, as the figures or 'units' given are often based on unreliable methods of testing.
This is the oil which the Liberal party want us to consume. Now I come to the cod liver oil which the hon. Member for Colne Valley condemns. In pages 124–5 these scientific gentlemen, who have really been intimate with the subject and have not merely considered it for the purpose of this Debate, state their conclusion:
Of the oils from the important cod areas studied, those from Newfoundland were found to be of richest vitamin potency. Next in order of merit come those of Icelandic origin. The oils from Scotland were found to be intermediate in value between the rich Newfoundland oils and the much poorer class of oils of Norwegian origin.
In view of authoritative statements like that, it is really time that that section of the Liberal party which is opposing this Bill should abandon the vote-catching device of trying to terrify electors by saying that the health of their children is going to be imperilled. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) started it, but he has had the good grace to drop it since he found out that his information was not too accurate. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not dropped it. He has avoided any subsequent reference to it, but his less able followers go on talking. Followers are always a little out-of-date compared with their leaders, for they always go on repeating something which their leaders have given up. I really ask them to drop it. It is not creditable to a party with great traditions that they should bring before the House and the country information of such little accuracy as that which has been produced on the subject of cod liver oil.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: It is with great trepidation that I dare follow the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but really one would imagine
that the last word had been said on the subject of cod liver oil. I assure the Committee that there are many sides to this question, and that it is feasible to look at more than one of them. One would imagine from all the talk about the kind of oil which is being produced in British factories, and the amount which can be produced by British factories and on British ships, that there would be no difficulty at all about an adequate supply of the finest quality of cod liver oil. As a matter of fact, only about 150 tons of oil are produced from British sources altogether.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The census of production for 1930 published by the Board of Trade a few months ago reveals from one section alone a production of 2,000 tons for that year.

Mr. ROBERTS: That may be so, but the figures of the Board of Trade relating to the home production of cod liver oil include oils from various kinds of fish and fish livers, and all of it is called cod liver oil. The greater part of the oil which is dealt with in the figures of the Board of Trade is not used for medicinal purposes. It is used for dressing leather. There is a very good reason for that, because it is impossible for human beings to take it. The reasons for that were given very adequately in the Debate last week. The geographical reasons and the question of weather and climate were dealt with very adequately on that occasion. If we have to rely entirely upon the home production of cod liver oil, we shall be in rather a had way, and similarly if we have to rely to any increasing extent for medicinal purposes on the use of Newfoundland oil. I have in my hand a letter dated 17th October from one of the largest firms of chemists not only in this country but in the world in which they say:
As regards this firm, our experience has been that the British public will not have the Newfoundland cod liver oil owing to its strong taste and odour.
These people do not manufacture cod liver oil but sell it. They know broadly what the public want, and the characteristics of the Newfoundland cod liver oil. They say that the British public does not want it. If, on the other hand, we are to follow the advice of the hon. Member for South Croydon in regard to the possibility of producing a sufficient supply in this country, there is one firm
which he mentioned whose name is known equally well by every member of the Committee. It is the name of Allen and Hanbury. They, in company with Messrs. Southall Brothers and Barclay, Limited, two of the biggest firms in the trade, would not be very likely to have gone to the trouble of erecting factories in. Norway in order to produce Norwegian cod liver oil had there been any possibility of their doing it adequately in this country or Newfoundland. The fact remains that they have done so, and that these two British firms are producing Norwegian cod liver oil, which will be taxed if these proposals go through in their present form.
There was a good deal of interruption and doubt when my hon. Friend the Member for Nine Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) mentioned the question of a rise in price. One can adduce all kinds of arguments to support the view that prices may rise or that prices may not rise, but I have here trade circulars issued to those who purchase cod liver oil for various purposes. One advertises the finest Norwegian.cod liver and the price of 4 ounce bottles is 6s. 3d. per dozen. This circular was issued at the end of September. Another circular to the trade is dated 24th October, 1932. It says that they are about to place on the market Newfoundland cod liver oil which will be supplied in three sizes. The four-ounce bottles are 13s. 6d. per dozen, as compared with the Norwegian cod liver oil of the finest quality at 6s. 3d. per dozen. The producers or sellers of the Newfoundland oil probably know something about their own business, and they are not going to attempt to put cod liver oil, which we have been told by big chemists the British public do not want, on to the market at a retail price of 13s. 6d. per dozen, if the Norwegian oil, which the public do want., can be put on to the market at 6s. 3d. per dozen bottles, plus the duty and the profit on the duty, which we must not forget, arid which will probably amount to 10s. per dozen or something slightly less. I felt that it was only right, after the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon, that I should bring these facts to the notice of the Committee.

Mr. REMER: I want to bring the Committee back to linseed. I am not going to enter into a controversy with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir
B. Peto), but there was one passage in his speech regarding these Agreements where he seemed to show a certain amount of disparagement of the value of what has been done at Ottawa with reference to the trading Agreement which we have made with the Indian Government. In looking at the question of linseed we have to have regard for the whole of the picture. I think that it will be found that what India is doing for this country is by far the most important part of the whole of the Ottawa Agreements. For the first time India is giving us Imperial Preference. I believe in the Ottawa Agreements. The value which we are receiving for our manufactures is of far greater importance than any of the other Agreements which have been made. I believe that we shall have an opening among the hundreds of millions of people who live in that great Empire which will bring us a very great volume of trade and provide employment for our people. It is for that reason that we should give India some advantage in regard to linseed which they produce. It should not merely be looked at as a single item and I appeal to my hon. Friends not to look at the matter in this way.

Dr. BURGIN: The Committee have listened to a very full and interesting Debate upon this Amendment, which relates to eight miscellaneous subjects. Of those eight, in spite of my elaborate preparations, only three of the articles have been referred to in the Debate—cod liver oil, castor oil and linseed, and by far the greater time of the Committee has been spent in referring to linseed. No possible complaint is made, because the subjects of this Amendment are undoubtedly of exceptional interest. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who moved the Amendment in a most temperate and reasoned speech, made reference to ad valorem calculations of duty, and referred to the duty on cod liver oil as being, in certain circumstances, 40 per cent. and on another quality of oil, 60 per cent. I only want to say to the Committee on the ad valorem figure generally that we are passing through a period when there is an extremely low price level, and consequently it is possible by arithmetic to make the duty appear to be a very high ad valorem figure. That is quite a fallacious argument, because the existing price level is far too low.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) contrived to render even a discussion on cod liver oil extremely entertaining, and his observations related chiefly to price. Other speakers have followed on the question of price. I should like the Committee to appreciate again, as I said on the Report stage of the Resolutions, that the ordinary method under which medicinal cod liver oil is sold in a retail chemist's establishment is in an eight-oz. bottle. Taking the duty at the level proposed by the Ottawa Agreements it would work out at a penny on an eight-oz. bottle, but there is no reason why the cost of a penny on an eight-oz. bottle should be passed on to the retail price at all. Including the duty, the cost price of the oil is 4d. per eight-oz. bottle, and this is sold over the counter at ls.6d. There is no reason apparent why the Id. per bottle which would be the arithmetical calculation of the duty should be put on to the retail price. There is plenty available from the profits of those concerned in the industry that its addition to the retail price of 1s. 6d. could not reasonably be justified.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that steps will be taken to see that no addition to price is made?

7.0 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I can give no such undertaking. The Members of the Committee are susceptible to the arguments based on the figures I have given. With regard to the price of the other type of oil, veterinary oil, used in cattle feeding, it must be borne in mind that cod liver oil forms only part of the total food ration for poultry and animals, and we are advised that the additional burden will be very small so Far as the individual farmer or poultry keeper is concerned. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) to castor oil, and he pointed out how large a percentage of the imports of that oil already come from within the Empire. The Committee will know that effective competition with that Empire product is solely from Belgium, and the idea of this particular duty is that some portion of that trade which goes to Belgium should be diverted to Empire channels.
We now come to the question of linseed, and we have had a very powerful speech from the hon. Member for Ealing. The Government are prepared to have the fullest possible inquiry made into a subject matter of so important a material as linseed oil. The discussion to-day is welcome, and the hon. Member's knowledge of the subject is appreciated, but he, on his part, will understand that the Government have advisers equally versed in the industry and all that belongs to it. The first question put was whether there was any demand for this duty from the Indian delegation, and if any pressure had been exercised for this 10 per cent. duty on foreign linseed? Not only did the Indian delegation press repeatedly for this particular duty, but their expert advisers were in this country for some weeks prior to proceeding to Ottawa; so Indian representatives who called here, and their experts, before proceeding to Ottawa had been demanding a duty. Representing the agricultural classes they knew what they wanted, and wanted it firmly. That is the reply to the specific question which has been put.
I am sure the hon. Member with his knowledge of the industry will recognise that linseed is different from fruit trees which have to be planted for a number of years before they yield fruit. There is nothing to prevent a crop of linseed being sown where it is desired in India. There are no climatic or other reasons why the export of linseed from India should not very enormously increase. In the figures which he gave he showed that the Argentine crop in one year was approximately half the crop in the previous year, and was nearly double the crop in the following year. He mentioned how the crop is subject to storms and other damage. The hon. Member will accept my assurance that it is possible for India, if she is so minded, to produce enormously more linseed than she does at present.
The question is: Has she the inducement to do so? Is there adequate inducement? Is the linseed problem understood by the Indian peasant and the agricultural community? The figures for the total Indian crop and export make interesting reading. I have them for every year from 1900 to 1932. The possibility of linseed has been nothing like
exhausted. It is a crop which does not require any particular skill in sowing. It is a crop peculiarly suited to the Indian peasant. It can be grown almost anywhere in India. It requires very little artificial fertilisation in India for a big crop to result. It is thought that a duty will stimulate a vastly increased crop. The hon. Member has called attention to the difference in quality between Indian and Argentine linseed. The difference in quality is partly through greater oil content and partly through the much more rapid drying qualities which the linseed oil possesses. If it were to be only a slightly increased crop, there would be no very considerable advantage to India, but if India increases her crop very largely indeed, then there is no reason why we should not take a very large percentage of ordinary linseed from India and so take a proportionately less quantity from the Argentine.

Sir F. SANDERSON: Does my hon. Friend realise that the crushers of this country have been, and always will be, prepared to take all the linseed that India can possibly spare; that India has no occasion to compete in price with Argentine linseed because Indian linseed is invariably worth more than Argentine linseed for the reason already expressed, namely, its higher oil content. It is worth £3 per ton more than Argentine linseed to-day and therefore there is no question of its competing in price against the Argentine.

Dr. BURGIN: The argument that India will never be able to do something is rather reminiscent of Canute. There will be a ready sale for the Indian seed if the increase takes place. But in fact with the increase of output the premium would disappear. If India is going to put on the market linseed in a quantity wholly out of proportion to that which she has produced and exported in recent years she will not long be able to obtain the high premium between Indian linseed and Argentine linseed. There is no suggestion that the large crop which the Argentine grows should not be available. We are endeavouring to make a difference in price to offer inducements to the Indian producer; to give encouragement to the Indian peasant, to grow a crop within his ability to grow and which this country is willing to absorb.
What would be the effect on our industry? I have been asked by many hon. Members to realise the effect which a duty on linseed coming from foreign countries would have so far as crushers are concerned, and so far as other industries are concerned. I appreciate that Holland and Belgium are to be able to buy Argentine linseed free, and we are to pay a duty. The crusher is to some extent disadvantaged, but we must not forget that under the Ottawa Agreements there is to be an increase in the duty on linseed oil from 10 to 15 per cent. The answer to the question as to the effect on the export trade in linoleum, and the effects on varnish, is that these can all very largely be dealt with by an adequate drawback system. Drawback with regard to export trade is not a new idea. It is provided for in the Acts dealing with the Customs and, expressly, under the Import Duties Act, as altered by the Finance Act of 1932. In the very Bill we are now discussing power is taken to apply the Sections of these relevant Acts to the duties in this Bill. The hon. Member will find it on page 4 of the Bill, lines 1 to 6. These show that the provisions and enactments set out in Part 3 of the Second Schedule are to apply to the duties being imposed under this Bill.

Mr. J. WALLACE: Will it be necessary for the interests concerned, who are applying for a drawback, to go before the Advisory Committee, because, if so, we should have something expressly in this Bill dealing with the matter.

Dr. BURGIN: Under Section 9 of the Finance Act of 1932 it is necessary for the matter to be referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. If it is necessary to set up a drawback system for the paint, varnish and linoleum trades, it may obviously present some difficulties. There may have to be administrative regulations worked out to see how far that can be done for the protection of the industries, on the one hand, and the revenue on the other. For that reason, it is desirable that matters of this kind should be referred to the Committee, and the procedure of Section 9 should be followed.

Sir P. HARRIS: There will be the process of the seed being converted into oil, and into linoleum and paint. Is there any precedent for a drawback under those conditions?

Dr BURGIN: There are a number of precedents for drawbacks where there are composite articles; where an article on which duty has been paid is worked up into an article of which it forms only part. I imagine there is no insuperable difficulty in tracing seed which has paid duty, which has been crushed into oil, and the oil used in manufacture. I hear words that it is quite impossible. In preparation for this Debate, I have made inquiries and I am given to understand that it is not impossible. It is an administrative matter which will certainly receive proper attention.

Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when these duties are imposed these industries will obtain a drawback?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member clearly understands that I cannot give any assurance. I say, immediately, that any danger to the export trade which uses as a raw material linseed oil can, as I sec it, be overcome by drawback provisions. I have said that the setting up of machinery for applying these drawbacks is not impossible. I have said that under this very Bill we are now discussing the drawback provisions of the Import Duties Act and the Finance Act are applied to these very duties. In this Debate, a strong demand has been made that a drawback should apply to these particular articles. Can I go further than that; is it reasonable to ask more? There are other stages of this Bill and in the interval the matter can be looked into to see if a more definite assurance can be given.

Sir B. PETO: Is it not a common practice in the case of duties which may injure industries within the country that the duty and the provisions of drawback are contained in the same Act so that Members who vote for the duty know exactly for what they are voting?

Dr. BURGIN: It is precisely because it is common practice that I suggest it is not an exceptional matter that requires a special Clause. In this Bill care has been taken by the draftsman to apply to this duty the common form of drawback provision applicable to other duties. May I mention how coffee and chicory are inexplicably mixed, but there is no difficulty in regard to the drawback? I mention that fact merely to show that these matters are being met by custom, which
is capable of being put into practice in regard to these duties, and steps are being taken to see that it is.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What I am anxious about is the time that it will take. It is not common practice. The Import Duties Act made no provision for drawback of the kind we are considering. It was my representation more than that of any one else that led to the insertion in the Finance Act of Section 9, which has only been applied in one case, cotton textiles, and that after many months. This is a much more serious matter, and we want some guarantee about it. I do not know whether it is going to take the Committee five or six months to give the necessary protection to the exporting trades, but before we part with this Clause, we ought to get some assurance from a Member of the Government.

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member really expects me to give him the time that I think it will take to apply for a drawback in any particular case, he has obviously asked for something which is completely unreasonable. I understood him to ask what time would elapse between the application for a drawback, and its being granted. It is obviously impossible in the Committee stage of the Bill to give anything more than a hazard but the importance of the matter has been raised in this Debate and hon. Members must be very nervous of the effect of their own advocacy if they think that the precedent for this procedure will not receive proper attention.

Mr. WALLACE: The Minister must remember that this is the only opportunity we have of dealing with the matter. We cannot go before the Tariff Advisory Committee and make recommendations. Therefore, it is not asking too much when I say that this matter ought to be considered again, and a new proposal brought forward which can be tabled before the House on the Report stage of the Bill.

Dr. BURGIN: I think the hon. Member has given the appropriate answer to his own argument. He started by saying that this is the only opportunity for raising the matter, and then he invited me to do something fresh on the next stage
of the Bill. I am perfectly prepared to say that the whole matter of drawback shall be considered between now and the next stage. The only other point with which I wish to deal arose out of the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) as to the effect on the seed crushing industry of the proposals contained in this Clause. I can only say that those industries are immeasurably better off since March of this year than they were before. The import duty of 10 per cent. on foreign linseed oil has provided that stimulus, and I could give the Committee instances of crushers who have moved their factories from the Continent to this country under the stimulus of that duty. If that has been the effect of the duty of 10 per cent. on linseed oil, I think the Committee might draw the conclusion that an increase of from 10 to 15 per cent. will probably have no less a stimulus. I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. BERNAYS: The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) cannot get away with it as easily as that. I would ask the attention of the Committee exclusively to the problem of linseed included in this Agreement. It is, I understand, the object of the proposal to give some advantage to the Indian Empire, and we who oppose it are told that we are against Indian interests. The hon. Member for Luton told us that there was a strong demand from India for its inclusion. Who made that demand I We hear a lot about the Indian delegates. Who chose the delegates? They were not the elected representatives of India. They were the nominees of the Viceroy, and already their proposals have been seriously criticised by those who claim to represent India. Sir Purshotlamdas Thakurdas, a very influential Bombay business man, and in many senses a. man of moderate views, has repudiated the whole Ottawa Agreements and says that there is no permanent advantage in them to India. Therefore, I think we can say that no danger whatever is involved in this Amendment of widening the breach between ourselves and India.
The hon. Member for Luton made no attempt whatever to answer the argument that the linseed crop in India is comparatively small in contrast with the Argentine crop, which is the main source of the world supply. He says that the
production of Indian linseed can be increased, but how long will it take? He mentioned that it would take less than it takes to grow an apple tree. I believe that it takes four or five years to grow an apple tree. While the new Indian linseed crop is growing, where are we to get our linseed except from the Argentine, which will be at an increased price? Indian linseed is already more expensive than Argentine linseed. It fetches £1 to £2 a ton more than linseed from the Argentine. The new duty of 10 per cent, will raise still further the price of the linseed. We can make that argument in the Committee for the first time without Conservative interruption, because the case has already been given away by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). I am very glad to find myself, for the first time, in agreement with the hon. Member for Barnstaple, but I do not understand the reasons why he is not going to extend his co-operation with us to the Division Lobby.
The hon. Member for Luton has admitted in Committee on the Financial Resolution that the price will be raised. That is a serious business for our manufacturers. This affects the raw material for the paint and varnish industry and for the petroleum and oil group, which last year exported manufactured products of the value of £1,700,000. The hon. Member for Luton can give us no guarantee whatever that a drawback system will be introduced. He says that he is not in a position to give such a guarantee. Why is there not a Cabinet Minister present to give such a guarantee? Why is the Committee treated with this gross discourtesy by leading members of the Government? What is raw material? It is a commodity which comes

in here in order that British capital and British labour may be expended upon it. Any restriction on a raw material impedes the flow of British capital and the employment of British labour.

How often have I heard that very argument from the lips of the hon. Member for Luton. I see sitting next to him his old opponent in Hornsey (Captain Wallace). I wonder how often he repeated that argument in the Hornsey election. I have sat on the same platform as the hon. Member for Luton and I have enjoyed his sallies at the expense of the Protectionists. How often has he driven home, with all his weight of eloquence, this raw material argument. I wonder what the hon. Member for Luton thinks of that argument now. I know what I think of the hon. Member for Luton, but I cannot state it within the bounds of Parliamentary decorum. This raw material argument appealed to a man even greater than the hon. Member for Luton, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who, in his classic Tariff Reform campaign, specifically exempted raw material from the scope of taxation. It appealed in the case of linseed to those who regard themselves as the legatees of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, members of the present Administration. The Government specifically placed linseed on the Free List, Why is it removed now? The hon. Member has made no answer of any kind to that question. I hope that hon. Members not merely of the Liberal party and the Labour party, but of the Conservative party, will back up their opposition to this duty in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 260.

Division No. 332.]
AYES.
[7.28 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert


Bernays, Robert
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Briant, Frank
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mabane, William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cove, William G.
Groves, Thomas E.
McKeag, William


Cowan, D. M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Curry, A. C.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Dagger, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Davies, Edward C, (Montgomery)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Edwards, Charles
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Rothschild, James A. de
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
White, Henry Graham



Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Albery, Irving James
Fox, Sir Gifford
Meller, Richard James


Allen, Sir.J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mitchell, Harold P.(Brtf'd & Chisw'k)


Apsley, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gluckstein, Louis Halie
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Atkinson, Cyril
Goff, Sir Park
Morning, Adrian C.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Graves, Marjorie
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Greases-Lord, Sir Walter
Munro, Patrick


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Greene, William P. C.
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Grimston, R. V.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Batterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
North, Captain Edward T.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nunn, William


Blindell, James
Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Borodale, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Bossom, A. C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Penny, Sir George


Bracken, Brendan
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Petherick, M.


Brocklebank, C. E, R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Horobin, Ian M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Browne, Captain A. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pybus, Percy John


Burghley, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Burnett, John George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Calne, G. R. Hall-
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Iveagh, Countess of
Rankin, Robert


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cassels, James Dale
Jamieson, Douglas
Ray, Sir William


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Remer, John R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cook, Thomas A.
Knebworth, Viscount
Robinson, John Roland


Cooke, Douglas
Knight, Holford
Ropner, Colonel L.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, S. T.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cranborne, Viscount
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Craven-Ellis, William
Leckie, J. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Crossley, A. C.
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lewis, Oswald
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liddall, Walter S.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Scone, Lord


Dlckie, John P.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Selley, Harry R.


Donner, P. W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Eastwood, John Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Slater, John


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Storey, Samuel




Stourton, Hon. John J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Summersby, Charles H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wise, Alfred R.


Tate, Mavis Constance
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Withers, Sir John James


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wragg, Herbert


Thompson, Luke
Wells, Sydney Richard



Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Weymouth, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mr. Womersley and Commander


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Southby.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after the word "agreements" to insert the words:
(except in so far as they relate to copper).
This is a very important Amendment and I think it is a great pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absent from his place on the consideration of a proposal which so nearly affects his own constituency and the City of Birmingham. Indeed, throughout the whole of these Debates the members of the delegation to Ottawa have run away from the discussion just as they ran away from Mr. Bennett and the Wall Street financiers, whom he and his clique represent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when speaking the other night about copper said that there were enormous technical difficulties. There are. The proposed duty on copper will about double its price, and that will not be very satisfactory to the users of copper here. If electrical cable makers and other users of copper have to pay twice as much for their raw material in competition with other copper users abroad who get their copper tax free, it will hamper the British exporter of manufactured articles in which popper is used, and it will be no answer to put forward the argument, advanced just now by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that a. duty is not high if the price is low. I should like to see the hon. Member addressing an audience of Income Tax payers and using the argument that the Income Tax is not very high because their incomes are very low. It would be interesting to watch the result on them and on him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer used two other arguments in regard to the question of copper. He admitted that Canada was not able to supply all the electrolytic copper that we used, but that Canada in the future might be able to do so. At present she is not. As far as fire-refined copper is concerned he
said that it was impossible for the Empire to supply it. Therefore, one half of the supply the Empire cannot supply and the other half Canada is not able to supply at the present moment. What is going to happen? The duty on copper is imposed on condition that the Empire supplies it at the world price. What is the world price? The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he did not know; and apparently there is no world price of copper It varies according to the different metal markets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in order to fix a world price for copper the producers and consumers are meeting together to hammer it out; not the copper but the world price for copper. I want to know how far they have got in their hammering and whether they are hammering the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the price of copper.
What will happen if they do not arrive at an agreement as to the world price of copper; and if they do agree how much money will go into certain people's pockets by this arrangement amongst themselves as to what the world price for copper is to be? It is important that we should know. One thing is clear, and that is that the Government are in a state of complete confusion about this question of copper. I suggest that when they went to Ottawa they had no intention at all of putting a duty on copper. What has happened is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sacrificed the interests of Birmingham to the blustering and hectoring of Mr. Bennett. I wish that his distinguished father had been alive and gone to Ottawa instead. He would not have taken it lying down. That statesman would very quickly have put Mr. Bennett in his place and on his back. I can well understand that at the present moment the copper users of Birmingham are saying with regret: "One crowded hour of glorious Joe is worth an age of Ottawa surrenders."

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I should be obliged if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I understand is going to reply, will answer a few points Which I think will be of interest to the Committee. When I looked at my Order Paper this morning I expected to see an Amendment to regularise the position of copper in the name of the Government, and I conclude that as they have not put down such an Amendment they propose to accept the present Amendment. In fact, as the President of the Board of Trade said the other day, they have given up, after weeks of experiment and after the reception of their proposal, any idea of taxing copper. The President of the Board of Trade in his speech last Thursday made it perfectly clear that the British Delegation did not adequately examine the question of copper before they went to Ottawa, or at Ottawa, and it is after they have come back and been met with universal reproach by the users of copper in this country that they have decided to act and set up a committee, the composition of which it will be interesting to learn, of users and producers to guide them as to what action they should take. That is a most extraordinary omission, because copper is a most important raw material.
The world production of copper is approximately 1,500,000,000 tons, and of that amount about 150,000,000 is used in this country; that is about 10 per cent. of the whole copper production of the world. Therefore, it is a vital raw material for British industry. Of that copper approximately two-thirds is what is called of electrolytic quality. As to the non-electrolytic copper, I do not think we need have the least fears about the remaining one-third. The Dominions are able to produce substantial quantities of electrolytic copper for our use of the quality required, but when we come to Bessemer and fire-refined copper there are insuperable difficulties; there is not produced inside the British Empire copper of the requisite quality. No amount of protection of any sort will ensure that the Empire shall provide the copper-user with copper, Bessemer or fire refined, containing a lower degree of tungsten. I gather, that in some specifications the quantity provided for is as low as 1 to 1,000 parts, but the general rule seems to be that five parts to a 1,000 is a safe quantity of tungsten
to be present in Bessemer and fire-refined copper which is used for such things as copper plates and tubes, and so forth, used in shipbuilding, engineering and housebuilding, and in every conceivable sort of thing in which electrolytic copper is not used.
We are, therefore, face to face with the fact, as the President of the Board of Trade recognises, that there is an impasse as regards non-electrolytic copper. It cannot be produced in the Empire in sufficient quantities or of the right quality. The President of the Board of Trade, finding himself faced with these difficulties, has done a very remarkable thing. First of all he assured us in his speech on Thursday that when the British Delegation were at Ottawa they only agreed to a duty on copper subject to the condition that users and producers were equally safeguarded. In fact that is not so and could never have been so, because although the alleged safeguards as regards world price and quantity are there, there is no proviso as to quality. Therefore the Government will find themselves in the very curious predicament of having to acknowledge that they cannot, without the greatest injury to the industry in this country, enforce a proposal to tax copper, one of the main proposals in the Ottawa Agreements.
If that is the ease, what becomes of the argument that it is impossible to change anything in this Bill? I understand, from what the President of the Board of Trade said on Thursday, that he proposes to make a very vital change indeed, and proposes to make it on the authority of a joint committee whose report we have not seen. He said that the joint committee would report on 5th November. The Debates upon the Ottawa Bill in this House will have finished before then, and I think it would be to the interest of the House if the Financial Secretary could see his way to give us the conclusions at which this joint committee of copper users and producers have arrived. If it is the intention of the Government to withdraw this duty, we are entitled to know precisely upon what ground and upon whose advice they propose to do so, because this joint committee is not mentioned at all in the Ottawa Agreement. It is an ad hoc body. There is no provision in the Agreement that such a joint committee shall be set up or consulted, or still less that its advice shall be taken.
It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that the Government should be willing to withdraw one of these taxes on the advice of such a committee, and yet when it was faced with equally cogent arguments upon linseed from Members of all parties, the House should be told that nothing that the House can do can alter these Agreements in any shape or form.
There is another point I wish to put to the Financial Secretary. I hope he will forgive me for saying that I hope we shall get a more satisfactory reply on the question of the world price of copper than we had on the question of the world price of wheat on Friday last. As the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cooks) said, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at an agreed price for copper. Prices vary in different markets, and they vary as regards different qualities of copper and countries of origin. I understand that the joint committee which has been set up is to make recommendations to the Government as to what shall be the "call" of the world price, and as to what "first sale" is to mean. If they are really going to define these things in terms of the copper trade we shall have the Government taking action upon very curious grounds indeed.
I am informed on what I know to be right authority that in fact the dealings of copper buyers in this country are carried on in the following way: The copper that they buy from abroad is bought at the market price, minus what is known as a returning charge, a secret drawback given by the supplier to the buyer. Are the Government going to take account of these returning charges in estimating the world price? If they do not take account of these returning charges, obviously they are going to give the Empire producer a very unfair advantage. If the world price is going to he calculated upon some kind of arbitrary amalgam of all the quoted prices in the newspapers, and the returning charges are not to be taken into account, the Empire producer will be able to say, "I have offered copper in the British market at the world price as defined by the Board of Trade." I am informed that up to the present the Empire producers of electrolytic copper have not been willing to make returning charges to the trade as foreign suppliers have done.
The whole of this argument depends really upon what the Government are going to tell us about the recommendation of this joint committee, and upon what action they are going to take in response to it. I see nothing in the Bill which enables the Government to discriminate between two qualities of copper. In the Bill the word "copper" appears; there is no difference specified between Bessemer or fire-refined and electrolytic. If one follows the Chancellor of the Exchequer one would believe that they were going to impose a tax immediately upon electrolytic but not upon Bessemer and fire-refined. If one followed the President of the Board of Trade one would believe that they are going to suspend the operation of the tax upon both or all sorts of copper until some unknown day when the Empire producers are able to supply adequate quantities of all qualities. What are the Government going to do? Under what Clause in the Bill do they propose to discriminate between one kind of copper and another? Secondly, are they facing the fact that it is a question principally of quality and not of quantity with which they have to deal?
This Committee has been treated with some degree of disrespect by the Government. I do not say it has been deliberate, but I think that more attention should have been paid to the very weighty arguments which have been put forward against the imposition of some of these duties. In particular I think that, irrespective of parties, the whole Committee would have been glad to have had more complete and definite answers than they have received, really adequate explanations of the grounds upon which the Government are taking action in specific places. I hope that in this case we shall hear from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a reasonable explanation of why the Government are taking action, upon what grounds and upon whose advice, and upon what Clauses in the Bill they say that they are justified in taking the action which they propose to take.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) spoke in the spirit of one who was desirous of learning and my hon. Friend who has just sat down
spoke in the spirit of one who was capable of teaching. I am ready to recognise the "expertese" which he has in this subject. I shall do my best to answer all the questions put to me. I have no desire to evade any questions put on this or any other occasion. The Agreements provide for a duty on foreign unwrought copper of 2d. a pound, that is to say on copper in its raw material state, to be used by other industries—the cable making industry, the electrical industry and the brass industry. Clearly the Government would not have undertaken to put this duty on foreign imported copper unless they were satisfied that resources existed in the Empire for replacing what now comes from abroad, and unless they were satisfied that the users of copper would get what they require, not only in ample quantity but in reliable quality and at a satisfactory price. The Agreements so provide either in letter or by implication.
8.0 p.m.
Hitherto our users of copper have been dependent upon the United States or upon South America for their needs. That is because it is only recently that the Empire resources have become available. The Government came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that we should remain dependent upon foreign sources of supply, firstly because we could provide ourselves in sufficient quantity, and secondly because we were strengthened in our conviction by the recent duty which the United States has imposed of four cents a 1b. on copper entering that country, a duty which acts as an obstacle to the development of our Imperial resources. So we put this duty on foreign unwrought copper for the purpose of diverting the channels of supply. We had difficulties confronting us, and my hon. Friend in his able speech dealt with those difficulties. In the first place, some varieties of copper, particularly Bessemer copper coming from the Empire, are not free from impurities. My hon. Friend made much of that point and quite rightly. We hope to overcome that first difficulty in a manner which I shall suggest in a moment. Our second difficulty was that while there is an ample quantity of copper in the Empire there is not an ample quantity of refined copper. That is another difficulty that
we hope to overcome. It is for that reason that we have provided in the Bill that Empire copper may enjoy this preference even though it be refined outside the Empire—and that, for a period of three years, or it may be by extension, even longer. Now, in order to ensure that our plans should work smoothly and without hindrance my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade called together, in the manner which has been mentioned already, the consumers and producers in this industry, and at that conference 90 per cent. of the whole industry was represented.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Consumers and producers!

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Both.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: In London?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, at the Board of Trade. They have reached an agreement and they say:
The intention being to ensure a progressive change-over from non-Empire to Empire copper, the consumers agree to give every possible assistance to the producers including the maintenance of a technical committee on which representatives of the producers will be welcome for the study and discussion of the problems"—
That is the problems of the technical impurities—
arising in their endeavours to satisfy consumers' requirements it respect of quality and further"—
and this is important—
they will, from now on, as far as lies in their power purchase from Empire producers in preference to non-Empire supplies.
I do not think we could excel a statement of that kind for generosity and prudence combined. Here are the principal users of copper undertaking that, even without this tariff, they will give preference in their purchases to Empire copper and that they will assist the producers to overcome the technical difficulties of which we have been speaking. They have also reached a definition of "world price" and that was one of the specific queries put by my hon. Friend. This is what they say:
With regard to world price the producers and the consumers agree to adopt as world price the London Metal Exchange quotation for copper, exclusive of duty, it being understood that if separate quotations are in future to be made for Empire copper and non-Empire copper, the latter quotation shall be adopted for the purpose of this agreement.
That is the operative part of the Agreement on this point. They also answer another of my hon. Friends interrogatories as to the meaning of "first sale."
As regards first sale it is agreed that this is intended to mean sale by producers, and/or by bona fide agents of producers, to any consumer.
Finally, they undertake to accept the principle that United Kingdom consumers shall not be at a disadvantage as compared with foreign consumers. As I have said, here is an agreement representing the views of 90 per cent. of the trade, and I hope hon. Members will agree that this is a most promising outcome of the Imperial Conference. Here is a great industry coming together promptly to give effect to the principle on which all the Imperial Governments agreed at Ottawa, of increasing inter-Imperial trade.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: May I ask were the Canadian Government consulted on the variations which will have to be made? May I also press my hon. Friend a little on the point as to what the Government propose to found themselves on, in delaying the bringing into force of this Measure in view of the fact that the question of quality does not arise in the Agreement?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We did not omit to take those points into consideration. We are satisfied that the Canadian Government will raise no objection because this Agreement which I have quoted represents the producers in the Empire countries and the consumers in this country, and we are advised that we have ample power to fulfil that Agreement in the manner which I have mentioned.

Mr. AMERY: I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the duty will now be levied on electrolytic copper, but will be in suspense as regards fire-refined copper. It seems to me that, generally speaking, the arrangement which has been arrived at is an admirable one and one which fulfils the original intention of the Agreements, that Empire production should be effectively encouraged and protected against the artificial methods of the United States, and at the same time that the consumer should have a fair chance. The only point upon which
I should like to utter a, word of warning is with regard to the definition of "world price." It is, of course, obvious that in a large open market in which there are no duties and where a number of competitors meet there is such a thing as a price which may be described as a world price. If the market is a free market then there is a price which is very largely relative to the world as a whole. But the situation is modified when a market imposes a duty.
It is a well-known fact that where sellers are particularly anxious to sell in such a market and have to meet heavy competition from other sellers who pay no duty, they will put down their price specially in order to surmount the duty. Therefore in a, market where a duty is imposed you may have a specially low price quoted by certain foreign sellers, a price which bears no relation to the general price in world markets as a whole. The price at which they sell is not one that can fairly be described as a world price. It may be a residual price, if the market is a small one to which the overflow of a great many other markets are sent or a price specially put down in order to get into that market. That raises the difficulty that you may get a price after the paying of the duty which is as low as the price in other free markets, yet, if you take the foreign price in our market, it may be lower by the extent of the duty. Therefore, you may say, if you take that narrow construction of the term "world price," that the duty ought to come off.
The point is, I admit, somewhat complicated, but if I may mention an instance of what I mean it is this. Since the imposition of the 10 per cent. duty, lead has been sold in this country, I understand, after paying duty, at a price actually lower than the price in the Berlin market or the Paris market, in neither of which, I believe, duty is paid. It is therefore on any broad construction of the term being sold at or below world price. On the other hand in so far as foreign lead has been quoted on the metal market here and sold, it has obviously been sold at a still lower price in order to pay the duty and get in here. It seems manifestly unreasonable if so narrow a construction is to he taken of the term "world price" as to mean that, whenever instances can be quoted of a
metal, or any other of the limited commodities being sold in this market at a price before paying duty, lower than the price after paying duty, that that frustrates the intention of the Government. I feel that in this matter the term "world price" should be taken in the reasonably broad sense of meaning the price at which large quantities are sold in all free markets, or would be sold normally in this market if there were no actual duty imposed.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I be allowed to reinforce what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery)? The Board of Trade is to be congratulated on the admirable way in which they have dealt with the copper situation. The definition of

the terms "world price" and "first sale in the United Kingdom" presented difficulties but those difficulties have been met with great wisdom. The large consumers and the large producers of copper within the Empire met together at the Board of Trade under the chairmanship of a leading official, and, as we have heard, they have come to an arrangement which is likely to avoid any difficulty at all. I have criticised the Board of Trade earlier in these discussions and it is only right that I should say that they are entitled to congratulations on the admirable way in which they have handled what might otherwise have been a very difficult situation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 220.

Division No. 333.]
AYES.
[8.13 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Price, Gabriel


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Briant, Frank
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Roberts, Med (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M.
Hirst, George Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Curry, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams. Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McKeag, William



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Elmley, Viscount


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burnett, John George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cassels, James Dale
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Ganzonl, Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, James Archibald
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Atkinson, Cyril
Clarry, Reginald George
Glossop, C. W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cook, Thomas A.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cooke, Douglas
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Graves, Marjorie


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Craven-Ellis, William
Greene, William P. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Grimston, R. V.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crossley, A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blindell, James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Borodale, Viscount
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanbury, Cecil


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dickie, John P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Donner, P. W.
Hartington, Marquess of


Brass, Captain Sir William
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hartland, George A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Eastwood, John Francis
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Burghley, Lord
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Scone, Lord


Hornby, Frank
Moss, Captain H. J.
Selley, Harry R.


Horobin, Ian M.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Slater, John


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nunn, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hurd, Sir Percy
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pearson, William G.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jamieson, Douglas
Perkins, Waiter R. D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Summersby, Charles H.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Petherick, M
Sutcliffe, Harold


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'prn, Blist'n)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Kimball, Lawrence
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Liddall, Walter S.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Lyons. Abraham Montagu
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Remer, John R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rantoul, Sir Gervais S.
Weymouth, Viscount


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Robinson, John Roland
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McKie, John Hamilton
Ropner, Colonel L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wise, Alfred H.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Withers, Sir John James


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Womersley, Walter James


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wragg, Herbert


Meller, Richard James
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo



Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Dr.


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Morris-Jones.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
and provided that such duties shall be removed if at any time Empire producers are unable or unwilling to offer the commodities to which they refer, on first sale in the United Kingdom, at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of United Kingdom consumers.
The Amendment is based upon Article 4 of the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Canada. The Article reads:
It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead, as provided in this Agreement, may be removed if at any time Empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
It will be observed that the Article is limited to the four substances specified, namely, wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead, and the simple purpose of my Amendment is to extend the safeguard
contained in Article 4 to all the articles in the Schedule. There may be some mystic reason why these four particular commodities have been selected for this kind of protection, but although this matter has already once been discussed, and we have received a reply from the Minister, I think all who heard the Debate are still entirely mystified as to what the distinction is. The effect, of course, would be, if we had this safeguard applied to the whole Schedule, that if it could be proved in regard to any one of the commodities that the Empire producers could not or would not provide them in sufficient quantities, or provide them at the world prices, then the duty would automatically be taken off.
Criticism has been made and can be made as to the efficiency of the safeguard itself. Some criticism was made from these benches with regard to the method by which the world prices would be calculated, and how far they would really be an efficient safeguard in regard to wheat. None the less, in spite of those difficulties, which have been recognised
in all parts of the House—they were recognised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) only a few minutes ago, when speaking about copper—I do regard this safeguard as of enormous importance, at least in one respect. It shows that the Government, when they went to Ottawa and met the Canadian Delegation, clearly recognised two possibilities. The first was that it was reasonably possible that Empire producers would not be able to produce sufficient quantities, and the second was that it was reasonably possible that they would not be able to produce them at the world prices. If those things were not envisaged, there could have been no reason for Article 4.
The Government also recognised this, that if either of these events occurred, either a failure as to quantity or a failure as to proper price, the moral and economic basis for that duty had gone, and they recognised that with regard to the four particular commodities which they have specified. If they recognise that, it is an enormously important admission, because it knocks the bottom out of the case about the foreigner always paying the tax. The Government know now that that is nonsense, and to that extent they have to provide for it when they come to a substance of such universal importance as wheat. If it applies there, why not to the rest of the Schedule? The selection seems to be rather arbitrary. It is true that wheat in grain is a food stuff and that copper, zinc and lead are raw materials, but there are raw materials and foodstuffs that are left out. As a matter of fact, if you make a comparison between what is put in and given the safeguard, and what is left out, I imagine that the ordinary consumer who, I hope, is still of some importance, is much more likely to be worried about butter or even fruit than he is seriously to feel the effects of a zinc shortage. He might do so, but the immediate articles of domestic consumption are the things that will appeal to him first.
I should like the Financial Secretary to explain, in rather more detail than he was able to give me last time, why this distinction is made. I appeal to him with some confidence to acknowledge his
ancient principles. It is a curious thing that the most obscure parts of this Bill are always left to be defended by Free Traders and ex-Free Traders, possibly because from their previous knowledge they know the case on both sides, and a great deal better than others. I appeal to him as one who has seen a great light, for I want to share in any illumination that is going. On the last occasion I got no illumination from him at all. He made only two points in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) who moved the Amendment a week ago. The first was a purely debating point. He said that we who were moving the Amendment had no right to be heard on this subject because we ventured to criticise the efficiency of this safeguard when it was applied to meat, and therefore, once having ventured to uplift our voices in criticism, we are out of court and cannot say that the principle should be extended. That is a purely debating reply because the hon. Gentleman has got to walk by his own knowledge and that of his Cabinet, and not by ours.
Those above him thought it worth while to insert this safeguard in regard to meat, and he thinks it of value. Those who went to Ottawa would not otherwise have put it in. He thinks it of value because he explained with great vehemence what an enormously valuable safeguard it was when dealing with the quota. Although there may be difficulties in the application of the safeguard in the reckoning of the world price, I would rather have any safeguard than none. On Friday, after a great deal of pressure, the hon. Gentleman did succeed in going a little further in explaining how this matter of world price was to be reckoned. We understood that if any comparable article is being sold cheaper elsewhere than we can obtain it as a result of the duty, automatically the relief of the duty operates. For what it is worth, I should like that extended generally, and I should like to have it explained why this provision is of value when it comes to defending copper, but ceases to be of any value when it comes to defending the larder. We want to know what the defence is.
8.30 p.m.
The other reply of the hon. Gentleman, and the only other reply which we have
heard suggested, is one which has become very common in these Debates. It is to avoid altogether every question of the merits of a proposition which is put forward, and simply to say, "Well, here is the Treaty. You have to take it or leave it. In one of the Ottawa Agreements we have provided that this safeguard shall apply to wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead, but we have not inserted it in every case." That is the kind of answer which Shylock on a famous occasion gave to Portia. Any appeal to logic would simply get the answer, "It is not in the bond." Any appeal to his better feelings was met with the reply, "I cannot find it in the bond." After all, there was a more powerful argument there, because Antonio made the bond himself, but the consumers, whose pound of flesh is to be extracted on this occasion, were no parties to the bond. They knew nothing about it and had no voice in settling the duties. A number of arbitrarily selected gentlemen went to Ottawa and made the Agreements, and now they have been made the consumer cannot alter them and not even the elected representatives of the consumers in this House are allowed to have a single word. We are told that it has been done—and that condition of things is not merely for the lifetime of this Parliament; it is to go on for five years.
That being the case, I implore the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has now had time to look round a little more than when he was replying to me in the small hours last week, not merely to give us some reason which will explain the fact; that is obvious to anybody, that the Treaty is there, and that there are a lot of unreasonable things in it which he dare not or cannot defend, but to try and tell the Committee why this distinction was ever drawn in the original Treaty at all. After all the Debates in Committee have two objects: one, on more fortunate occasions, that we may hope to get Amendments through and make the proposed legislation better legislation; the other, if we have no chance, as appears to be the case here, to make what is bad better, that we may at least make the country outside realise how bad it is and give the Government in their turn a chance to answer us and explain the reason for their conduct. If they do not answer, if they hide behind
the decisions of the gentlemen who went to Ottawa, what possible result can be obtained from all the Debates that we are having? I implore the hon. Gentleman to give us some reasoned answer why this distinction has been drawn, and not to be content once more with the mere Shylock answer, remembering that, after all, Shylock came to a bad end.

Mr. ATKINSON: There is something to be said from one aspect for this Amendment, even though it may go too far. At present there are no words that I can see in the Bill to give effect to the provisions in the Agreements dealing with this matter. The next Sub-section of this Clause is intended to deal with that, but it will not unless some words of this sort are put in there or somewhere else. The next Sub-section does give the Treasury power to repeal these duties if they can do it without contravening any of the Agreements, but, although the Canadian Agreement provides a certain protection with regard to the question of quantities, the Australian and the South African Agreements do not contain that provision at all. Those two Agreements clearly enable us to repeal these duties if we are not getting the commodities at the world price. Therefore, as the Subsection says that it only enables you to remove these duties if you can do it without breaking any Agreements, you cannot do it without breaking the Australian and South African Agreements if you try and do it merely on the ground of the quantities that you require. I should have welcomed an Amendment of this sort if it had been limited to wheat, copper, zinc and lead, because it would have made it clear that the Treasury would have power to repeal those duties if the two conditions laid down in the Canadian Agreement were not being fulfilled.
With the Bill drawn as it is that condition about quantity is simply nullified. Certainly qua Canada, provided the quantity was not coming in, they could do it, but qua Australia they could not do it at all under the Sub-section. The only power to do it is if they can do it without breaking the Agreement; if they attempted to interfere with the Agreements on the ground of quantity, they would be breaking the Agreements in the case of Australia and South Africa. With words of this kind in the Bill itself, it
would make it clear that they could repeal these duties the moment either of these conditions as to quantity and price ceased to apply. I suggest to the Government that they should seriously consider the necessity of these words, limiting them to the four subject matters of wheat, maize, zinc and copper, which are specified in the Agreement. My point is that they should clearly have the power to remove these duties if we are not getting the commodities in sufficient quantity; because as the Bill stands now they could not repeal the duties however small was the quantity available.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend, as he has already informed the Committee, moved an identical Amendment when we were discussing the Resolution. It is true that in the Agreement respecting wheat, copper, lead and zinc there are provisos that these commodities must be sold at the world price, and in sufficient quantity, or the duty lapses. If I may digress for a moment to reply to my hon. and learned Friend, although the formula differs in the case of Canada and Australia, we are advised that there is a clear implication that the requirement as to quantity must prevail in the Australian Agreement as in the Canadian Agreement, and, indeed, we have made that plain to the Australian Government, who agree. When my hon. Friend moved his Amendment to the Resolution, I was compelled to say that although the condition applied to the commodities I have mentioned it did not apply to the other commodities in the Agreements which we were seeking authority to implement.
This Bill is to give effect to these Agreements, and I can only repeat this afternoon the argument I then submitted to him. There is a very clear reason why we selected these commodities for this particular safeguard as to price and quantity, and that is that they are all commodities which have a world quotation in the grain and metal markets of the world. My hon. Friend is not satisfied with that, and wants eggs to be made subject to the conditions as to world price. Nobody can suggest that there is a world price for eggs. The price differs in every village and in every country, and it would be quite impracticable to have a safeguard of this kind applied to eggs. Nor could we apply it to cheese,
or butter, or apples, or oranges, or plums or honey. All those commodities are sold at different prices in different shops, at different prices in different towns and at different prices in different countries. Therefore, to insert a provision of this sort would render all the Agreements not only nugatory but futile. I appeal to my hon. Friend to look at it in that spirit. He spoke of Shylock, and quoted the phrase about its not being in the bond. These Agreements deal with something far more majestic than a quibble about the world price of eggs. They are an exchange of advantages on both sides, and, since he is so fond of the "Merchant of Venice" I would tell him that they bless him who gives and him who takes.

Mr. McKEAG: I am afraid the Committee will not be very much impressed by the speech of the Financial Secretary. The speeches we have heard are sufficient in themselves to demonstrate the danger and complexity of these Agreements. I have taken the opportunity of comparing the Canadian Agreement with the others, and I find, so far as Canada is concerned, that while wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead are subject to this special clause in the agreement there is no such condition in the case of New Zealand, although we import foodstuffs from New Zealand. There is also no such condition with regard to Newfoundland, or Australia, or South Africa or Rhodesia. There the only condition is in regard to world prices, with nothing requiring that there shall be sufficient quantities. I do not know what explanation the Financial Secretary has to offer for these disparities in the Agreements with these various Dominions, but what we are chiefly concerned with is to insure that the whole range of foodstuffs, cheese, butter and so forth, should be subject to the same safeguards as zinc, copper and the other commodities which are specially referred to in the Canadian Agreement.
Reference has been made to the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). There, again, it was made clear how dangerous it is to have these complications and complexities. Only this afternoon I was asked by one of the principal fruit merchants in Durham to help him to find out from the Government what is his position in regard to certain importations for the Christmas
markets. He wishes to place a large order for the importation of Christmas trees. He is told by the Customs authorities that if these Christmas trees are imported with their roots they will be subject to a tariff of £20 per ton, but he is also given to understand, though with no surety, that if they are imported minus the roots they will come in on the 10 per cent. basis.. I mention that only to emphasise the danger of these complications, and I would urge upon the Financial Secretary the real desirability of accepting this Amendment. If he can-

not accept it in the terms in which it is proposed, cannot the Government at any rate accept it in some form which will be agreeable to the Departments while at the same time ensuring that the same safeguards which apply in the case of wheat, copper, zinc and lead shall be extended to the great quantity of foodstuffs which we import?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 228.

Division No. 334.]
AYES.
[8.46 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKean, William


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cowan, D. M.
Hirst, George Henry
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
John, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mabane, William
Mr. Russell Rea and Mr. Janner.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chorlton, Alain' Ernest Leofric
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Christie, James Archibald
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Graves, Marjorie


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, William P. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.
Grimston, R. V.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Apsley, Lord
Cook, Thomas A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cooke, Douglas
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Atholl, Duchess of
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hunbury, Cecil


Atkinson, Cyril
Craven-Ellis, William
Hanley, Dennis A.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hartland, George A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Blindell, James
Dickie, John P.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hornby, Frank


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horobin, Ian M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eastwood, John Francis
Howard, Tom Forrest


Bracken, Brendan
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A.U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hurd, Sir Percy


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elmley, Viscount
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Emmett, Charles E. G, C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Burghley, Lord
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Jamieson, Douglas


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Burnett. John George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Ganzonl, Sir John
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Kimball, Lawrence


Cassels, James Dale
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Glossop, C. W. H.
Knight, Holford


Cayzer, Maj. Slr H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Leckie, J. A.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Goff, Sir Park
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lewis, Oswald


Liddell, Walter S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Power, Sir John Cecil
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Storey, Samuel


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsden, E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rankin, Robert
Summersby, Charles H.


McKie, John Hamilton
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tate, Mavis Constance


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ray, Sir William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Meller, Richard James
Remer, John R.
Titchfield Major the Marquess of


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Robinson, John Roland
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Munro, Patrick
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Weymouth, Viscount


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Nunn, William
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wise, Alfred R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Scone, Lord
Womersley, Walter James


Palmer, Francis Noel
Selley, Harry R.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Pearson, William G.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wragg, Herbert


Penny, Sir George
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)



Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Petherick, M.
Slater, John
and Dr. Morris-Jones.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

"In page 2, line 38, to leave out the words or the increase of the rate.'

In page 2, line 39, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'or any part thereof.'

In page 2, line 42, after the word 'duty,' to insert the words or some part thereof.'

In page 2, line 43, to leave out the words 'or, as the case may be, shall be charged at such increased,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'at such.'

In page 3, to leave out lines 5 to 9."—,[Sir S. Cripps.]

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not propose to trouble the Committee with these Amendments. They are drafting Amendments, and I understand that the Government are prepared to consider the points which they mention.

The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White)—"In page 3, line 10, to leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5)." The Amendment would not be in order in that form, but if he proposes only to leave out Sub-section (5) I will call it.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out Subsection (5).
I do not propose to leave out Subsection (4) but only Sub-section (5) in
accordance with your Ruling. I will content myself with moving the Amendment formally in order that the Committee may have an explanation of the purpose of Sub-section (5). There are certain duties which are clearly necessary for the purposes of this Bill. They were incorporated in the Schedule, but I shall be glad to know why powers are taken apparently under this Sub-section to add duties to those which appear to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment. The rates of duty proposed in the Agreements are the rates conceived from the point of view of inter-Imperial trade, and are not necessarily conceived in reference to the introduction of any of these commodities into the United Kingdom. It would be wrong to deprive manufacturers in the United Kingdom of an opportunity of presenting their case to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for higher duties than those contained in these Agreements. Any such higher duties could not, of course, be prejudicial to the Empire countries concerned, because they would afford them greater preference, but there is not the slightest reason why an undertaking to put on certain minimum duties should deprive
our manufacturers of the opportunity of applying for higher duties. If we do not pass this Measure, every person in this country has the right to apply for higher duties in respect of any commodities which are in fact contained in this Bill. Why, by passing this Bill, should we take away from the inhabitants of the United Kingdom the right which they now possess to apply for higher protection than that which they enjoy at the present time? It would be manifestly unfair to do so.
Under the provisions of the Import Duties Act, as amended by the Finance Act, people in this country have a right to apply that goods now dutiable may be transferred to the Free List. That is a very important provision, because duties may be put on which are wrong. It is true that, in the ease of any such applications in respect of a commodity on which a duty is imposed under this Act for five years, while the Committee might hold an inquiry and present a report to the Treasury, the Treasury could not act on that report without infringing the Agreements, but that is no reason why, if difficulties should arise in connection with the duty on any commodity, either because it is too high or because it is imposed at all, the door should be closed to those who want to represent that some duty imposed under this Agreement is oppressive; and, if the Committee recommended to the Treasury that that was the case, the Treasury would he in a position to negotiate with the Empire country concerned and give reasons why they asked for some modification of the Agreement—and such modifications, of course, are contemplated under the final Clause of each Agreement.
I should like to know whether it is clear that under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Clause 1 what I am seeking is not possible. Under Clause 11, however, which is drawn in very wide terms, it may or may not be possible—I hope that the Financial Secretary will give me an interpretation—for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inquire into a case where we have imposed a duty under these Agreements which may be prejudicial to some British industry. I think it is very important that that door should be open, and I hope that Clause 11 covers it, but Sub-sections (4) and (5)
of Clause 1 deal with the same point, and I hope I have not been out of order in raising, on this Amendment, a matter which partly affects Clause 11 of the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Perhaps I might mention the next Amendment, which stands in the names of some of my hon. Friends—In page 3, line 31, at the end, insert the words "and subject as hereinafter provided." The Sub-section as it reads at the present moment, as far as we understand it, gives to the Import Duties Advisory Committee power to put additional duties not only on foreign goods but on Empire goods as well, because the restriction in Section 4 of the Import Duties Act will be in force until the 15th November, 1932, and after that date, unless a new date is fixed under the Act, that Section will lapse. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, therefore, would have power to make a recommendation that an additional duty ought to be charged on goods coining from the Dominions or Colonies. That matter is dealt with in Clause 2, and, therefore, I suggest that it ought to be made clear that the power here given is to be subject to the powers given in Clause 2, arid that the words "subject as hereinafter provided" should come at the end of line 31 and precede paragraph (a) of Sub-section (5).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman this question? Section 4 of the Import Duties Act provides that, when the 15th November has passed, the duties shall be such duties as may be made by order of the Treasury, and there is no reference there to any previous inquiry by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Therefore, as I read Section 4 of the Import Duties Act, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are not in a position to make any recommendations one way or the other in respect of preferential duties as such with respect to the Dominions, India and Southern Rhodesia.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that my understanding is different from the hon. Member's, and for this reason, that the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee can cover all goods of that class. That which stops the charging of duties on goods coming from the Empire is Section 4, but Section 4
ceases to operate after the 15th November, 1932, and then there will be nothing to stop it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has called my attention to a fact which I am afraid I had overlooked when I put the question. If I put the question, "That Sub-section (5) stand part of the Clause," it would not allow of his Amendment being moved. Therefore, I will put the Question, "That the words to the end of line 31, in page 3, stand part of the Clause."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I feel that I am almost exempt from replying on this Amendment, because of the answers which have been given from various parts of the Committee, but I will respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who asked me what was the meaning of this particular Sub-section. I do not know if he has still any doubt on the point after what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but it is clearly stated that the Import Duties Advisory Committee may recommend, in accordance with the Import Duties Act, that an additional duty be charged on

the top of these Ottawa duties. For this purpose the Ottawa duties come into exactly the same place as the general ad valorem duty, and there would seem to be no reason why the Advisory Committee should be prohibited from recommending an additional duty on the top of them, seeing that they are not prohibited from recommending an additional duty on the top of the present ad valorem duty. These additional duties may in certain circumstances even be put on Empire goods. That is provided for in Clause 2, as has been stated by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I had not had prior advice on the particular point which he has raised, but I am given to understand that these two provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 are absolutely watertight. I am very much obliged to him for having raised that point, and I will look into it, acknowledging, as I do, the spirit in which he has put down so many of his Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 52.

Division No. 335.]
AYES.
[9.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Christie, James Archibald
Glossop, C. W. H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir Park


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Apsley, Lord
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gower, Sir Robert


Atholl, Duchess of
Conant, R. J. E.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Cook, Thomas A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cooke, Douglas
Graves, Marjorie


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Greene, William P. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craven-Ellis, William
Grimston, R. V.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Croom-Johnson, R, P.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Crossley, A. C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Bircharll, Major Sir John Dearman
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hanbury, Cecil


Blindell, James
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hartland, George A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dickie, John P.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Donner, P. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Eastwood, John Francis
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer


Browne, Captain A. C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hornby, Frank


Burghley, Lord
Elmley, Viscount
Horobin, Ian M.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Emmott, Charles E. G, C.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Burnett, John George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Cassels, James Dale
Everard, W. Lindsay
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Iveagh, Countess of


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Ganzonl, Sir John
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Jamleson, Douglas
Nunn, William
Slater, John


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Kimball, Lawrence
Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H, R.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Knight, Holford
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Storey, Samuel


Leckie, J. A.
Petherick, M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'prn, Bilston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lewis, Oswald
Power, Sir John Cecil
Summersby, Charles H.


Liddell, Walter S.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lovat-Freser, James Alexander
Ramsden, E.
Thompson, Luke


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Rankin, Robert
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Thorp, Linton Theodore


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ray, Sir William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McKie, John Hamilton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Remer, John R.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wardlew-Milne, Sir John S.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Meller, Richard James
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Runge, Narah Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wise, Alfred R.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Withers, Sir John James


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Womersley, Waiter James


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Savory, Samuel Servington
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Scone, Lord
Wragg, Herbert


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Selley, Harry R.



Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Captain Austin Hudson and Dr.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Morris-Jones.


North, Captain Edward T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mabane, William


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McKeag, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Briant, Frank
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cowan, D. M.
Hirst, George Henry
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Dagger, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.

CLAUSE 2.—(General preferences for British Empire.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out the words "subject as hereinafter provided."
So far as one can understand the first Sub-section of this Clause, it provides for conditional freedom from duties for Imperial products coming from the Dominions, but there is a provision that the Treasury can charge an additional duty on goods coming from particular Dominions if it is satisfied that by so
doing the Agreements will not be breached, and we are anxious to know the circumstances that are being provided for in the proviso. We therefore move to leave out these words and make the Sub-section a clear exemption for Imperial products of all kinds which are otherwise taxed when they come from abroad under the Bill. It seems that the object of the Bill is to give Imperial preference and, according to all the arguments that have been advanced by the Government, one of the things that are
desirable is that this preference should obtain with certainty for a number of years. But this seems to raise doubt in the mind of everyone as to whether or not at some intermediate date the Treasury may not suddenly impose a duty upon goods coming from a particular Dominion, and we are very anxious to know why this uncertainty should be introduced. Naturally, if one is to have a system of Imperial preference, as we have to have in the Ottawa Agreements, it is desirable that as many goods as possible should come into the country free. Therefore, anything which tends to add a further duty upon any of the goods which come from the Dominions is something which we should resist, and unless the hon. Member can give us some very satisfactory reason for this system of giving the Treasury power to add additional duties to Imperial products we shall have to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As my hon. and learned Friend has said, this part of the Clause gives the preferences to those who were parties to the Agreement. The proviso upon which he desires an explanation provides that if without contravention of any of these Agreements an

additional duty can be placed upon Empire goods the Treasury may by order impose such additional duties. The reason is that it was made plain throughout the Ottawa discussions and it is made plain in certain parts of the Agreements—the first intention of the Government is to protect the home-producer, the second intention being to protect the Dominion producer. If, therefore, after experience of these Agreements it is found that the home producer requires a modicum of protection, even against the Dominions, he is not debarred from obtaining it owing to the fact that we have inserted this proviso. It may, for instance, appear with regard to poultry or with regard to some other agricultural product at the expiry of three years—it is the stipulation in Schedule A of the Canadian Agreement and other Agreements—that the home producer may petition for some benefit, and he can get it under this Proviso. That is, indeed, the object of the Proviso.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 51.

Division No. 336.]
AYES.
[9.19. p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Glossop, C. W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goff, Sir Park


Allen, Sir Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Christie, James Archibald
Gower, Sir Robert


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Clarry, Reginald George
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Graves, Marjorie


Atholl, Duchess of
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Greene, William P. C.


Atkinson, Cyril
Conant, R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cook, Thomas A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooke, Douglas
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Craven Ellis, William
Hanbury, Cecil


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crossley, A. C.
Hartland, George A.


Blindell, James
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Donner, P. W.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bracken, Brendan
Eastwood, John Francis
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brass, Captain Sir William
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hornby, Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Horobin, Ian M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elmley, Viscount
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Burghley, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Iveagh, Countess of


Burnett, John George
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fuller, Captain A. G.
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jamleson, Douglas


Cassels, James Dale
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Nunn, William
Slater, John


Kerr, Hamilton W.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.


Kimball, Lawrence
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Knight, Holford
Pearson, William G.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Penny, Sir George
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Leckie, J. A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Petherick, M.
Storey, Samuel


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lewis, Oswald
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Liddall, Walter S.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Summersby, Charles H.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ramsden, E.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Rankin, Robert
Thompson, Luke


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ray, Sir William
Thorp, Linton Theodore


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaharn)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


McKie, John Hamilton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Remer, John R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Meller, Richard James
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Welts, Sydney Richard


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Weymouth, Viscount


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chiew'k)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wise, Alfred R.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Withers, Sir John James


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Womersley, Waiter James


Moss, Captain H. J.
Scone, Lord
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Selley, Harry R.
Wragg, Herbert


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Nall-Caln, Arthur Ronald N.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Captain Austin Hudson and Major


North, Captain Edward T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
George Davies.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bernays, Robert
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Briant, Frank
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Cried (Wrexham)


Cowan, D. M.
Hirst, George Henry
Rothschild, James A. de


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Curry, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 36 and 37.
This is almost a unique Amendment, because I think it is the only one so far moved which would make no alteration in the character of the Bill. There is really no necessity for these words at all. We have all been told that unnecessary words should not be included in Bills. I am informed that the Government already have these powers under the Interpretation Act, and consequently
I suggest that these words are unnecessary, and that the Government might accept the Amendment.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I beg to support the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member says we already have the power to vary or revoke an order apart from the Bill. If that is so, he cannot object to these words except on the ground of redundancy. There is the proviso that the
Treasury shall have power to make such an order, and we should be on the safe side by providing equally that it should have power to vary or revoke such an order. We do not think it is unnecessary, and in these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure that the hon. Member cannot have considered the point, because in the Interpretation Act it says that the power to make an order shall include the power to vary or revoke an order. This power is already given by the words "power to make an order." If the words are inserted, it will arouse suspicion in some people's minds as to what is the meaning of the Interpretation Act. They have never been inserted in other cases and they are unnecessary in view of the Interpretation Act.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Surely the words appear in the Import Duties Act, and if that is so, there can he no objection and certainly no misconstruction placed on them here.

Mr. ATTLEE: I understood the National Government were in favour of economy, and why should you print an extra word in every Bill throughout the country? The hon. Gentleman has been totally unable to give any reason for it and has not controverted the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, but simply says they should be inserted even if they are redundant. We might have any number of words put in just because a Minister is not quite certain where he stands. It is not good enough for him to come down without being able positively to say that the insertion of these words will not make the slightest difference, but that on the whole he thinks it better to have them in. He is sinning against conciseness and economy.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I rise only for the purpose of informing the hon. Member that I have had it verified that by the Interpretation Act power is given to revoke Regulations only and not Orders. That being so, instead of his suggestion that the point is covered, seeing that there was some doubt about it, I should have thought in his legal capacity he would have said we must be on the safe side.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: The hon. Member opposite has said it would be uneconomical to put these lines in. There are over 100 pages in this Bill and there are about 40 lines in each page, so he is only objecting to two lines, which is therefore one two-thousandth part of the cost of this Bill which is 2s.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out from the word "chargeable," to the end of the Subsection.
This Amendment deals with the case of the Irish Free State. There are two parts. In one case, while exceptional legislation directed against the Irish Free State is in force, the Ottawa Import Duties are not to apply, but as soon as this matter has been settled, happily as we hope, then the Irish Free State is to be treated as a foreign country. It is a most extraordinary position to be taken up by a Government largely composed of members of the Unionist party, because we have here a definitely separatist movement. We all deplore the present position between the Irish Free State and this country, and we all hope that some settlement may be come to in this contest which is proceeding somewhat on the principle of the fight between the Kilkenny cats. When the Dominions Secretary and Mr. de Valera or someone else have met and successfully made a settlement, then there is a proviso here that we are going to treat the Irish Free State as a foreign country or, at least upon the basis of a Dominion that has not made any special arrangement. I should have thought it clear that if any settlement is to be come to, that settlement must include some trade agreement, if the Irish Free State is still to be treated as a Dominion. It is very unfortunate that there should be such a proviso in the Bill, which, in effect, contemplates and expects a continued state of tension between the two countries. It almost contemplates a final separation. I suggest that as this matter is still, we hope, to be settled by agreement in the near future, that there is no reason whatever to insert these words. It is much safer to say that these duties shall not become chargeable, and to deal with the next situation as it arises, instead of putting in a rather threatening proviso.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I doubt whether the hon. Member speaks quite definitely for his party. It will be on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he has said, and his views on the Amendment that he has moved. He knows perfectly well that the Amendment will not be carried, but in order that the electorate may know exactly what he has moved and what he intends, I must remind the Committee that if the Amendment were carried it would give a premium to any Dominion that wanted to repudiate their obligations. I thought that the hon. Member did not know that, and that is why I thought it necessary to bring it to his notice. Let me explain to the Committee exactly the position under the Bill and the Amendment which has now been officially moved. I will deal later with the phrases with which it was moved.
The Bill says that if, in the application of these Agreements any Dominion, no matter what that Dominion may be, fails to observe its agreement, it will be open to His Majesty's Government to say: "You have failed to observe your Agreement. Therefore, we cannot be expected to keep ours." That is not only a natural condition, but it is a commonsense condition. If there are two parties to one agreement, and one says: "Having entered into the agreement, we now feel, no matter what the circumstances may be, that it would not be wise to go on," common sense and common prudence says: "Under those circumstances, the other party is free from its obligation." That is the Bill as it stands. For the benefit of the Committee and the country, I would ask: "Is that not a commonsense arrangement?" If there are two parties to an agreement and one of the parties say that they are unable to comply with the agreement, common sense says: "If one party is unable to fulfil their obligation, the other party are at least released from their side of the bargain." The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member says: "That may be true in regard to Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Newfoundland, but so far as Ireland is concerned we want to put her in a privileged position, so that she, unlike any other Dominion,
will get benefits, notwithstanding that she may have broken an agreement."

Mr. ATTLEE: They have not an agreement.

Mr. THOMAS: That is what this Amendment means. In other words, it puts a premium on a Dominion that defaults and penalises those that do not. Having established that position the hon. Member says: "She has not got an agreement." Let us see why she has not. Here I am coming to trade union practice. The hon. Member cannot be very well acquainted with that, but there are a number of hon. Members opposite who are.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his facts. I have been a trade unionist for 25 years.

Mr. THOMAS: There are people who have been trade unionists for 50 years who do not know trade union practice. I am speaking of trade unionists who understand trade union practice and who, like me, have stood for collective agreements. Those collective agreements were of such a character that we were able to say to the employers: "If you break the agreement, we shall pull you up." That is sound trade union practice. In the dispute that, unfortunately, prevails with the Irish Free State, they have broken an agreement and, just as I did with a railway company when they broke an agreement, I pulled them up. I said that the principle that applies to collective bargaining between a trade union and an employer, is the same principle which should be observed between Governments. I intimated that. The hon. Member will be aware that three months ago I stated, on behalf of the Government, that the free entry that applies until the 15th November would cease so far as every Dominion was concerned, unless there was a new agreement made.
We went to Ottawa and made Agreements with every other Dominion except the Irish Free State. In accordance with the declaration I made on behalf of the Government, it was known before we went to Ottawa, and it was announced by me last week on behalf of the Government, that, having failed to reach an agreement with the Irish Free State, on the 16th November free entry from that country would cease. I, like the hon.
Gentleman, deplore the circumstances. He said that it was a sort of fight between Kilkenny cats. As long as it is placed on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and as long as it is understood in the country, that the hon. Member looks upon one of our Dominions repudiating their obligations, which means that the British taxpayer has to bear the burden, and defends it as a sort of fight between Kilkenny cats, I am content to allow this House and the country to judge.
I repeat that the Amendment would place the Irish Free State—the right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well—in a more privileged position than a Dominion which observes its agreements. That is the Amendment. On behalf of the Government I not only resist it but I say to the hon. Member and his friends, are you wise in your move? Do you really speak for the working classes, do you really speak for trade unionism? There are leaders of trade unionism on the other side of the House who know the value of collective bargaining, who will be called upon to defend their workers against any repudiation by the employers. I say to them; are you wise in going into the Lobby and by your vote and actions say that you will not only be a party to supporting those who repudiate their obligations but you carry it even to the extent of looking upon it as a virtue and give them a privilege because they have disregarded their obligations That is the Amendment now before the Committee.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have rarely heard a more irrelevant speech than the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It had about as much relevancy to the question as Thursday morning has to St. Paul's Cathedral. In what respect was the question of collective bargaining raised by the Amendment? How can the right hon. Gentleman argue or imply that my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) indicated that we believe that collective bargains should be repudiated? There was not the slightest justification for 99 per cent. of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. THOMAS: In order that my hon. Friend may understand. The hon. Member moved an Amendment, and that Amendment was that the Irish Free State, although they have repudiated
their obligations, should never have the Ottawa Duties imposed upon them. That is the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by doing what no other speaker on the Ministerial Front Bench has done. He has trailed his coat somewhat liberally so that my hon. Friend and others presumably might tread upon it. He was much concerned as to whether my hon. Friend spoke for his party. He need not worry himself. When my hon. Friend fails to speak for the party we will pull him up, not the right hon. Gentleman. When he speaks from this Box the right hon. Gentleman can presume that he speaks authoritatively for his party. What was the point put by my hon. Friend? It was a simple proposition, and was in no way answered by the right hon. Gentleman. Let us assume that we are wrong, but at any rate let us have an answer to the proposition which we have put to the Committee. What was it?

Mr. THOMAS: Kilkenny cats.

Mr. JONES: To-night the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with cats. At Ottawa he was concerned with "Comic Cuts." What was the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse? He said that the implication of this Clause was that, while certain exceptional legislation, already passed, applied to the Irish Free State the Ottawa Agreements did not apply. Let us hope, however, that the time may come when a more amicable arrangement may be arrived at between ourselves and the Irish Free State. In that case my hon. Friend puts the proposition that the effect of the Clause, if it remains as it is, would be that the Irish Free State then would be treated not on a par with other Dominions but as if she were a foreign nation. My hon. Friend may be right or he may be wrong, but at any rate the right hon. Gentleman never made an attempt to answer him. He never dealt with the point. There was no point at which he even touched the argument of my hon. Friend, even to indicate whether he was right or wrong. No question of collective bargains was raised. Is it true or is it not that when a period of amicable relationships is arrived at between ourselves and the Irish Free State, when the cause for exceptional legislation has passed, the situation then, if the Clause
remains as it is, will be that the Irish Free State will not be regarded as a Dominion and treated like other Dominions but will be regarded as a foreign nation——

Mr. THOMAS: rose—

Mr. JONES: I am willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman presently. At the moment I am putting an argument, and I do not want to be interrupted. The right hon. Gentleman was much more concerned to score a debating point. Three times in a speech he referred the country to the implications of the Amendment. Let the right hon. Gentleman forget the country for a moment and apply himself to this difficult proposition. I give him credit for a desire to see the time when harmonious relationships will exist between ourselves and the Irish Free State. Very well. In order to help and not deter that, he ought to be able to give us an assurance that when that new relationship has come Ireland will enter into the community of nations within the Commonwealth, treated like others, on a par with the others. That is all we have raised. It surely is not an improper point to raise. It does not justify all the posing that the right hon. Gentleman has indulged in, and his posturing before the country. That is utterly indefensible and a little unworthy of the very important point which my hon. Friend raised. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now give us a straightforward answer.

Mr. THOMAS: I am at a loss to understand this outburst of my hon. Friend, as he was present when his hon. Friend moved the Amendment on behalf of the party opposite. "Kilkenny cats," "treated as a foreign nation,"—all these phrases were not mine; they were the phrases of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. My hon. Friend must not be so indignant, because he knows me and I know him, and all his outburst carries no weight with me. I knew just the value to attach to the Mover of the Amendment, and I merely used my illustration of collective bargaining because on the Opposition side of the Committee there are trade union officials, and as trade union officials they knew what I meant by keeping an Agreement. I repeat again to my hon. Friend who wants a clear answer to his question, Yes, on behalf of the Government, I say
that we will welcome the earliest opportunity of the Irish Free State entering with us into a trade agreement that will be a trade agreement within the British Commonwealth of nations. I repeat that now. But the opportunity to do that was before and at Ottawa. We cannot go back on the declarations made in the House of Commons, that on 15th November free entry ceases unless an agreement is made.
I assure my hon. Friend that even if the Amendment were carried—it will not be—or even when it is rejected, it will not prevent this Government and me, speaking for the Dominions Office, being not only anxious and willing but delighted to enter into a trade agreement with the Free State. But meanwhile the Irish Free State and everyone else must realise that the British Government believe in the sanctity of agreements, and that until the sanctity of agreements is established and realised by every Dominion, no useful purpose will be served by giving any intimation of any sort or kind that we are willing to commit ourselves to fresh bargains with those who have not kept the existing bargains. When the existing bargains are kept the Government will not only enter into fresh negotiations and will be willing and anxious to do so, but we will come to this House, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be the very first to say "Yes, we are glad of this change of policy, and we want the Irish Free State to continue as she is at this moment, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations." Until the Free State says that, until she realises her obligations, until she deliberately accepts the bargain she entered into, she cannot be inside the British Commonwealth and have all its economic advantages, and yet remain outside for political advantages. In other words the Irish Free State has to be in or out. I say on behalf of the Government that the Irish Free State has to be in to have all the advantages of the British Commonwealth.

10.0 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question which has been put to him. What we are dealing with now is the form of Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 of the Ottawa Agreements Bill. What we are question-
ing is not the policy of the Government towards the Free State at the moment, but the wisdom of the form of the Clause which is being put into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quite clearly cannot have appreciated what is in the Clause. If he will be good enough to look at it he will see that the Clause lays it down that these duties which are put upon foreign goods shall not be charged on goods from the Free State" until the earliest date on which no order is in force" by virtue of the Special Duties Act against the Free State. It has nothing on earth to do with 15th November. The Special Duties Act does not cease to operate on 15th November.
This Clause says that these duties shall not operate until after the order under the Special Duties Act has ceased to be in force. That will not happen, I gather, until an agreement is arrived at with the Free State. So that we are not dealing with anything happening on 15th November next; we are dealing with what will happen when an agreement has been come to with the Free State. According to this Clause, if an agreement has been come to with the Free State the duties will be charged on Irish goods as if they came from abroad. What this Clause says is that those duties shall be chargeable when the special duties cease to be chargeable, that is to say when a fresh arrangement has been come to with the Free State. Further, it is to be part of the fresh arrangement with the Free State, if this Clause is passed, that the full duties are placed upon all Irish goods coming into this country. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to suggest that he is going to start a negotiation with the Free State on the basis that under an Act passed by Parliament he is bound to charge them the full duties as if they were a foreign country? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says "Hear, hear!" It seems to him to be a satisfactory way to arrange a thing with the Dominions to start by saying, "We must treat you as a foreign country." Hon. Members have not appreciated what is in this Clause.

Mr. THOMAS: Read the last words.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am coming to the last words. The right hon. Gentleman
may say that it is possible by a special Resolution of this House to postpone. But the point that has been put time and time again to the Front Bench opposite is, What happens when Parliament is not sitting? [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but what happens if he wants to come to an agreement with the Irish Free State when Parliament is not sitting? The answer is that he cannot do it. He has to wait until the House of Commons sits again before a Resolution can be passed exempting the Irish Free State from these duties. If this were an order made by the Treasury or some other Government Department when the House was not in Session one could understand it. There would at least be an argument behind it, but this form of words has been refused by the Government, when dealing with duties in every case, because, they have always said, "There is a time when the House is not sitting. How are we to deal with duties during that time which may be three or four months? What are we to do? We have no power." This Clause is so drafted that it expressly takes away the power of the Government to do anything unless they can get a Resolution through the House of Commons.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, that if he is going to try to deal with the Irish Free State after the date when the special duties are finished—and that is the only time with which we are dealing because up to that time any operations against Ireland are under the Special Duties Act and not under this Measure at all—he ought to preserve complete freedom in the Government, to charge or not to charge duties under the Ottawa Agreements against the Irish Free State. We ask him to redraft this Clause, so as to preserve complete freedom, in order that he may be able to go into negotiations with the Irish Free State and say, "I can take off all the duties or I can leave them on." Then he can negotiate an agreement with the Irish Free State as with any other Dominion. If he goes into those negotiations and has to say, "I am sorry but I cannot do anything for the next two months because Parliament is not sitting, and I am bound to charge the full duties because this Section says so," then he will inevitably hamper his power of coming to an agreement with the Irish
Free State and we beg him seriously to see that that power to come to an agreement with the Irish Free State at the first possible moment is not jeopardised by the form of this Clause.

Mr. THOMAS: In addressing the Committee again I am only responding to the invitation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Do let us be both practicable and common-sense in this matter. My hon. Friend opposite if he had the responsibility of any office in the past would have known, as indeed he must know now, that this is not an issue which has just arisen. Here is an issue on which the policy of the Government was declared months ago. I have no hesitation in saying again, as I have just said to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) that the simple position is this. When the Import Duties Act was introduced, a declaration was made and accepted by the House of Commons that unless fresh agreements were made, free entry would cease on 15th November. That is common agreement. We have tried and are trying at this moment to make a new agreement because we do not desire that this should operate, but the House of Commons will make a profound mistake, as I have already pointed out, if you are going to say in advance, no matter whether Ireland remains adamant or not—because that is the effect of the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The effect of the Amendment if carried would be that no matter what the circumstances might be, the Ottawa Duties would not apply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is no good saying "No." The legal gentlemen do not say "No."

Sir S. CRIPPS: Since the right hon. Gentleman puts it to me I do say "No." The position under this Clause is that all dealings with Irish Free State taxation are to be under the Special Duties Act of 1932 and not under the Imports Duties Act at all. This matter never has been dealt with under the Import Duties Act. It is under the Special Duties Act and, so long as the right hon. Gentleman wants to charge duties on Irish goods coming in here, those duties will be charged under the Special Duties Act, 1932.

Mr. THOMAS: I am not going to let the Committee get away from the point.
My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that his interruption is not correct. I repeat, what is the situation? On 15th November free entry ceases in the case of any Dominion unless a special agreement is made. There is no special agreement with the Irish Free State and free entry ceases. If this Amendment is carried, as it has been moved, the Ottawa Treaties can never, unless specifically mentioned, apply to the Irish Free State. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, and I am not going to allow anyone to get away from it. Therefore what the Committee are asked to vote upon is this: that having declared free entry till 15th November, with the hope that agreement would be made, and no agreement having been made, free entry ceases on 15th November and the Amendment now moved would mean that the Ottawa Duties, no matter what the circumstances, would never apply to the Irish Free State. We repudiate that proposal and that is why we resist the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I think the quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman and the late Solicitor-General is rather beside the point. The late Solicitor-General has suggested that the House of Commons might not be sitting at the time when the right hon. Gentleman made such an arrangement as has been indicated. Unless I am much mistaken Mr. Speaker in such circumstances has the power of calling the House of Commons together and getting such an agreement ratified within a few days. It has been done several times. It was done when the Irish Treaty itself was signed. It was done during the coal stoppage and it was done last year during the crisis when the National Government came into power. I think the late Solicitor-General can sleep quietly in his bed and when he knows a little more about the procedure of the House of Commons he will realise that it is not quite so difficult to carry out such an arrangement as that which the right hon. Gentleman has explained so carefully to him in so many speeches this evening.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 32.

Division No. 337.]
AYES.
[10.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
North, Captain Edward T.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nunn, William


Albery, Irving James
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Graves, Marjorie
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'knh'd)
Greene, William P. C.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Patrick, Colin M.


Apsley, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Penny, Sir George


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Atkinson, Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Petherick, M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portem'th, C.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hartland, George A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Blindell, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Borodale, Viscount
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsden, E.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rankin, Robert


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ray, Sir William


Bracken, Brendan
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hornby, Frank
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Brass, Captain Sir William
Horobin, Ian M.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Briscoe Capt. Richard George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Remer, John R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ranwick, Major Gustav A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Nowb'y)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Robinson, John Roland


Browne, Captain A. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Buchan-Hephurn, P. G. T.
Iveagh, Countess of
Rosbotham, S. T.


Burghley, Lord
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Burnett, John George
Jamleson, Douglas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cassels, James Dale
Ker, J. Campbell
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Sanderson, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Kimball, Lawrence
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Christie, James Archibald
Knight, Holford
Scone, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Selley, Harry R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Colman, N. C. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Slater, John


Cook, Thomas A.
Lewis, Oswald
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cooke, Douglas
Liddell, Walter S.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith-Carington, Neville W


Cranborne, Viscount
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Spears, Brigadier-General Edwerd L.


Craven-Ellis, William
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Crossley, A. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Storey, Samuel


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Major Alan
Summersby, Charles H.


Donner, P. W.
McLean, Dr, W. H. (Tradeston)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tate, Mavis Constance


Eastwood, John Francis
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Cot. Sir M.
Templeton, William P.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thompson, Luke


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thorp, Linton, Theodore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Milne, Charles
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitcheson, G. G.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, L.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John
Moss, Captain H. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Munro, Patrick
Weymouth, Viscount




Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Wise, Alfred R.
TELLERS FOR AYES.—


Wills, Wilfrid D.
Womersley, Walter James
Lord Erskine and Commander


Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Wragg, Herbert
Southby.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George






NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Hirst, George Henry
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L, (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert

Sir J. SANDMAN ALLEN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(7) Grain shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been consigned from a port on the east coast of the United States of America and shown as aforesaid by means of a certificate signed by an officer in the service of the Government of the Dominion of Canada to have been grown in Canada shall be treated for the purpose of this section and of section five of the Import Duties Act, 1932, as if it had been consigned from a part of the British Empire.
This is an important Amendment, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it, because it deals with a matter which seriously affects the grain trade of this country and the grain trade with Canada. During the winter months the eastern hound trade of Canada cannot go through the St. Lawrence ports, During the summer months it goes to Montreal and Quebec, and is there shipped to Europe; but in the winter months, when the St. Lawrence is closed, the great bulk of it goes to Buffalo into a bonded warehouse. No wheat can go to America without a duty being paid on it, and therefore it goes into bond at an elevator, and from there on to the train and then to the ship. That is the practice in the grain trade. If we had to seal only with the question of Canadian-grown wheat, I would not have to trouble the Committee with any question at all, because the preference applies to Canadian-grown wheat, but there is the use of the word "consigned," which is used in a technical way by customs and other authorities. That is where the difficulty comes in. There is no question of its being American wheat. That is a totally different type of wheat, both as regards grade and origin. There is not the slightest doubt that it is Canadian wheat and that it can be nothing else.
The only question is whether the Government—and possible the two Governments—wish to upset the practice of the trade, which has been going on for years. I have to admit, to be perfectly frank, that different shipments from different parts go into one elevator, and one cannot therefore say that any particular grains of wheat belong to one particular shipment, but that all the wheat is from Canada there is no question. It becomes a technical point as to whether "consigning" must mean direct consignment under a direct document. If it does that will be totally contrary to the practice of the trade. The effect of leaving the Bill as it stands will be to penalise the whole of that large portion of Canadian wheat which comes through United States ports in the winter, because the only other route involves very long train haulage down to St. John's, New Brunswick, or Halifax, Nova Scotia; and there are not the facilities there for dealing with large quantities even if the extra haulage expenses were justified. The point is a very important one and I would repeat that there never has been any question the Canadian grain being mixed with United States grain.
I would draw attention to Sub-section (6) which deals with the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. Shipments from those three colonies are made from the Portuguese port of Beira. The goods go into warehouse there and any goods that are shipped from there to the United Kingdom will get the benefit of the preference, while those that are consigned to Europe do not. In principle there is absolutely no difference between those two cases, and it seems to me there is no reason why we should not at least grant authority to deal with Canadian wheat
in the same way. If the Government would wish to confine it to granting power or giving permission to do it, let them alter the Amendment to that extent; but to shut the door on even that concession seems a very unfair way of dealing with the preference, and, apart from that, it involves a most serious dislocation of a system of trade which has existed for years. It will disturb the whole of the gain trade both in Canada and this country. I submit that this is a practical Amendment, it is not like some of the Amendments, which could not be accepted, and I hope the Government will see their way to agree to it.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) in a very full and very able statement of the case. I will try not to traverse any of the ground which he has covered. I must, however, hasten to emphasise the point, which he made towards the conclusion of his speech, when he drew the attention of the Committee to the object of the Amendment, which is the placing of wheat, with regard to this preferential duty, in precisely the same positon that copper and other products are placed, when they are exported from Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, by the provisions of the previous Sub-section. The fact that this provision is not made in the case of wheat, which cannot by any means be described as a less important article than those which are imported from Nyasaland, has given cause of comment and criticism of this Bill, in a way which was never intended, and which ought never to have arisen.
It is clear that if provision is not made, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, for the carriage of wheat from the western ports of the great lakes, during the winter time, down to American ports, the alternative will be a long transit, with greatly increased cost, to the two small Canadian ports of West St. John and Halifax. I do not associate myself with the rumour, allegation or suggestion which has been made, but it is being said, owing to the absence of a provision for wheat similar to that which the Government have already made in regard to copper, that the provision has been left
out simply as a ramp to drive Canadian wheat over the Canadian railways.
I am opposed to these agreements altogether, but if we are to have agreements they should at least be so clear that no allegation of that kind could possibly arise. My hon. Friend has said that the absence of the provision will drive the trade out of its natural channels. The cost of this duty upon the price of the standard loaf is estimated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as a farthing, or a very small amount, whatever the amount may be that he mentioned. I am of opinion that, unless an arrangement is made to let wheat from Canada go through its normal course, a very serious additional charge, probably far greater than the small charge of the duty will arise. I have had occasion before to refer to the extraordinary position of the grain trade. Undoubtedly, some very important changes will be brought about if they are not allowed to transmit their wheat in bond down to the American ports.
Wheat is an article which is extremely easy to transport. It can be brought down in bond and put into bond in the warehouses in the American ports, and whenever a ship is found to have a little space at the last moment, a parcel of wheat can be put into it. Since the development of wireless telegraphy, a ship containing wheat, may, when in mid-Atlantic, be directed towards whatever port where it may be most needed. That is a very important arrangement, and if it is disturbed, the consequences may be very serious indeed. There are those who say that, having regard to the small capacity of the alternative accommodation in the ports which will be available during the winter in Canada, there will be a very serious risk of a shortage in those seasons when, owing to variation in the crops in other parts of the world, we might be driven to rely almost entirely upon the crops from Canada.
Many Amendments have been introduced in the course of the discussion of this Bill, and many have been rejected, not, indeed, on their merits, but because they were inconsistent with the conditions of the Agreements. This Amendment does not interfere with any Agreement whatsoever. It is a suggestion which will enable the Agreement to be carried out with great advantage to all concerned.
If the Amendment is not accepted, it is quite clear, not merely that the local interests of the grain trade, but that the interests of the great mass of the consumers in this country, and also of those Canadians who are supposed to benefit from the Bill, will probably suffer a very serious disadvantage.
My hon. Friend has pleaded with the Government to accept this Amendment, and I sincerely hope that they will. There is a very grave apprehension in the minds of those who are accustomed to deal with the wheat trade in this country, because there has been no experience yet under the Import Duties Act of goods coming from Canada after the St. Lawrence has been closed by frost, and they have been in consultation with the appropriate authorities on this matter, who inform them that the regulations under the Import Duties Act would not entitle wheat carried in the way that has been usual up to the present time to the preferential rate. That, really, is the gist of the whole matter. If the Government can inform us that they will accept this Amendment, or, failing that, make arrangements to see that the traders and consumers of this country are not disadvantaged by this arrangement, they will be rendering a very considerable service. I understand that provision is made in the Time Table for a Report stage, but, of course, there will be no Report stage unless some Amendment is accepted which has to be reported to the House. As the Government have made provision for a Report stage, I am sure that they could not choose a better Amendment than this one for that purpose. I do not wish, however, to close entirely on that note, because I and my hon. Friends with whom I am associated in this Amendment have been in close touch with this matter and have given it much study, and we attach the greatest importance to the Amendment.

Mr. LOGAN: I consider this to be a well reasoned Amendment. My hon. Friends from Merseyside have gone carefully into the matter, and I can certainly say to the Government that, if the Amendment is accepted, it will confer great benefit on the grain carriers of this country and will be most beneficial to our trade. That will be particularly so in the case of the shipping trade, and I and
my hon. Friends on these benches would fully agree to its acceptance.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) referred to normal trade. From the moment that the Lakes are closed, and from the moment that the St. Lawrence is closed, there is no way of getting native Canadian grain out of the country eastwards except through the two Canadian ports and the United States of America. If the Government agree that Canadian grain can be earmarked, I would ask them to accept this Amendment. With reference to the question of normal trade, let me give the facts which were submitted to me by one large concern, namely, that, once navigation was closed, four ships came out in the winter from these two Canadian ports, and 45 came out of United States ports. The proportion was the same last year and the year before. Therefore, it is clear that normal trade means that in the winter that Canadian grain should come out of United States ports, but, when it does so, apparently, it will, under this Measure, lose the advantage which it would otherwise get.
Even apart from that, let me recall the fact that this is a period when the English shipping trade is suffering as it has never suffered before. There are the great English lines which run big ships from the United States to Liverpool—I am not now speaking of the "Majestic" or the big Cunarders, but only of those big ships that come to Liverpool, carrying passengers but also capable of carrying from 10,000 to 12,000 tons of cargo. They have always been accustomed to filling up the ship with grain when available at what to me are ridiculous terms. They are prices which are really not reasonable but which they quote in order to fill up the ship. We are, under this Bill, going to penalise those big liners. It is well known that the Cunard Line had to stop the big luxury ship which they have laid down, and they hope to make enough money with their other ships to pay for these luxury liners which are in competition with the subsidised ships of France, Italy and Germany. The only way in which the Cunard and White Star liners can pick up this grain will be to put into St. John and Halifax at enormous cost. If I were a shipowner,
I should say it is not worth the risk, in foggy weather and in the winter, to put into those ports to pick up what grain there may be. Apart from the grain trade, which is to be disorganised by this Measure, I think we should not allow the great lines to be penalised by ships, say, from Italy or Norway which, with much lower wages than the English, will endeavour to put into ill-adapted ports like Halifax and St. John in competition with English liners from the American ports. I am not speaking in any way to benefit the Americans. I am speaking in order to implement what we wish to do for Canada and the Western States and not to penalise British shipping.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should like to make one point which has been overlooked by my hon. Friends, that Merseyside is the second largest milling station in the world. I am very much afraid that, if the free flow of grain from Canada is withheld, the result will be that the Canadians will do their own milling. I view this with great fear, because that trade provides much employment for my constituents. I trust that the Government will look to that and realise the risk which they are running in diverting grain from its normal channels.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I know the Government are faced with great difficulties over this matter, because the whole basis of Imperial Preference is that goods are not only to be grown in the Empire but are also to be consigned from an Empire port, and I know that throughout the Departments concerned have attached the utmost importance to maintaining this principle. That makes it more difficult for the Government to make this concession. Nevertheless the arguments which have been placed before us are arguments of great substance. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that no human being knows how much wheat grown in Canada reaches this country. Some years ago, to my knowledge, statisticians of our Departments, and of the Canadian and American Departments, in conference tried to analyse the position, because they felt that it was very unsatisfactory that no one should know really what the trading relations were between the two wheat-producing countries of North America
and this country. The trouble arises sometimes from the diversion of ships at sea, sometimes because in the summer a great deal of American wheat is shipped from Canadian ports, and the Committee have already learnt that a great deal of Canadian wheat is shipped from American ports.
An estimate was prepared some two or three years ago which showed that about 40 per cent. of Canadian wheat that came to the United Kingdom came through United States Atlantic ports. If that figure is true and if, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) says, the probability of shipments taking place in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick is often impossible, it means that, by refusing to accept this or some similar Amendment, 40 per cent. of Canadian wheat exports to this country are going to pay a duty of 2s. a quarter. That is, to a material extent, going to destroy the arguments, namely, of benefit conferred on Canada and secondly of the price effect. The argument which I and others advance that the duty will not raise prices is based on the assumption that Empire wheat will not pay duty. Unless some steps are taken by the Government they will deliberately impose on 40 per cent. of Canadian wheat coming into the country a duty of 2s. a quarter. I am told on the best authority that over 80 per cent. of the wheat shipped from the United States Atlantic ports is, in fact, Canadian wheat. It dominates the whole trade from those ports and the call for some action is overwhelming. It may be unfair to press the Financial Secretary to a decision at this moment, but, on the other hand, if a decision is not taken at this moment, unless some Amendment is made, there will be no Report stage. If the situation is such that they feel that action should be taken, it will be the duty of the Government to create a Report stage by some kind of trifling Amendment, and in all earnestness I urge the Financial Secretary to make strong representations to the Cabinet as to the gravity of the situation.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment need not apologise for the length of his speech. It was, indeed, a very brief speech although it adequately put the case—the very strong case—which he has in mind.
I observe that that case has been supported from all quarters of the Committee. My hon. Friend was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to raise this subject, and accordingly the Government looked into this matter once again with the very greatest care and with a very genuine desire to see whether they could meet my hon. Friend and those interested in the Merseyside. But it has been found impossible on two grounds, first, because the Customs procedure would make it extremely difficult to identify the wheat, and, secondly, on the ground of policy. It always has been a matter of policy to insist, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said, that goods which are to enjoy a preference must not only grow in an Empire country but must be consigned from an Empire country. Objections have been taken to that on behalf of various commodities again and again ever since preference was in being, and the Government have been compelled to resist the plea on the ground that if they gave way in respect of one commodity, or in respect of one particular country, they would have to abandon this principle, which they have steadfastly maintained, altogether. The principle is maintained in order that direct trading may be encouraged between the countries which enjoy the Preference and in order that the Preference may not he intercepted.
My hon. Friend instances the case of Beira which figures in this particular Clause. He says that goods coming from Southern Rhodesia may enjoy the preference although they are shipped through a Portuguese port and are not consigned direct to this country, referring of course to the port of Beira. The two cases are entirely different as between Canada and the United States and Southern Rhodesia and Beira. Southern Rhodesia is landlocked. It has no port at all, and by the sheer forces of geography and nature is compelled to use the port of Beira. It maintains a Customs Officer in Beira and because shipping facilities are limited it is bound to store goods at Beira. How then does this condition apply in the case in question? Is not Canada in a position to store wheat? Is not the United Kingdom in a position to store wheat? It is our purpose to encourage
the storage of wheat, either in Canada, which is to obtain this preference, or in the United Kingdom, where we may obtain the advantage of storage and warehouse dues. By virtue of giving the preferences we shall obtain advantages not only for Canada but for ourselves, and Mr. Bennett is perfectly well aware of that. Speaking in the Canadian House of Commons on 26th October, he said:
The Canadian Government has ascertained that the mere transit of Canadian goods across the United States would not prevent them from securing British preferences"—
I ask the hon. Member to remember that; they may still be sent across the United States provided they are consigned to us in this country—
provided that the goods were definitely consigned from Canada to the United Kingdom and that satisfactory evidence of this can be produced.
That is the position as defined by Mr. Bennett and clearly understood by him. He goes on:
The preferences would not be available to goods sent from Canada to the United States and reconsigned thence.
Therefore, we are creating no misunderstanding as between the Canadians and ourselves. Mr. Bennett appreciates the position perfectly well.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: That is what Mr. Bennett says, but is that what the Law Officers will say that it means?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is what Mr. Bennett says, and I must trouble the House by reading it again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it the law of the land?"] This is what he said:
The mere transit of Canadian goods across the United States would not prevent them from securing British preferences provided that the goods were definitely consigned from Canada to the United Kingdom.
That is an exact statement of the law. The goods must be not only grown but consigned from an Empire country to this country. Therefore, Mr. Bennett was precisely right in saying what I have read.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is it quite clear that such and such a transaction does exist? Is it not rather a play upon words?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Member wishes to accuse Mr. Bennett of
playing upon words, I can only say I am quoting Mr. Bennett who has accurately defined the position. I do not think there is any play upon words. This is the historic qualification for preferences and it is not being newly enacted in this Bill. It has been in existence from the very time we first brought in preferences, and we must maintain this position that if goods are grown and consigned in a Dominion we give them the boon of the preference, and it is an advantage given on that condition. You cannot give the preference to anybody who says: These were grown in an Empire country"; the Customs must be in a position to check that. They have gone into this matter sympathetically, and they have, as the hon. Member for Croydon is aware, found it impossible to administer a position of this kind. If they had found it possible, I might have been in a position to give a more satisfactory answer, as indeed I should have desired to do, but if this does result in finding some means of encouraging greater trade between Canada and Great Britain and in providing storing accommodation, either in Canada or here, instead of the United States, it will, at any rate, be of great advantage.

Sir P. HARRIS: I only want to say one word on the remarkable speech we have just heard. It is quite clear that the Government are prepared to face the position that for the first time Canadian wheat may be subject to a tax of 2s. because by the working of this machinery, unless a provision of this character is inserted, it is inevitable that in the winter time some Canadian wheat which comes through Buffalo when the Great Lakes are frozen will be treated as foreign wheat, and therefore for the first time wheat grown in Empire countries will be taxed.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I desire to thank the Financial Secretary for the way in Which he has answered the question. He has not in the least satisfied me, but I appreciate the fact that he has courteously considered the points I made. In the circumstances, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by pressing the Amendment to a Division.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is it the desire of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 247.

Division No. 338.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rothschild, James A. de


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mabane, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Boyce, H. Leslie


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Bracken, Brendan


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Apsley, Lord
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Atholl, Duchess of
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Atkinson, Cyril
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Borodale, Viscount
Browne, Captain A. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bossom, A. C.
Burghley, Lord


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ray, Sir William


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirring)


Cassels, James Dale
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Remer, John R.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jamieson, Douglas
Robinson, John Roland


Christie, James Archibald
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rosbotham, S T.


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Runge, North Cecil


Cook, Thomas A.
Kimball, Lawrence
Russell, Flamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Cooke, Douglas
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Knight, Holford
Salmon, Major Isidore


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Craven-Ellis, William
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Crookshank, Cot. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Liddall, Walter S.
Scone, Lord


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Selley, Harry R.


Donner, P. W.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duncan, James A.L.(Kansington, N.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Eastwood, John Francis
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Slater, John


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Major Alan
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mason, Col. Glyn K, (Croydon, N.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Storey, Samuel


Fox, Sir Gifford
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Milne, Charles
Summersby, Charles H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Templeton, William P.


Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thompson, Luke


Gower, Sir Robert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Greene, William P. C.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Train, John


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
North, Captain Edward T.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hanbury, Cecil
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hanley, Dennis A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Sir George
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hartland, George A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Alfred R.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Womersley, Walter James


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)



Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Horobin, Ian M.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Mr. Blindell and Commander


Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsden, E.
Southby.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ratcliffe, Arthur

It being after Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th October, sue-
cessively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 55.

Division No. 339.]
AYES.
[11.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Adrian C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Albery, Irving James
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Goff, Sir Park
Moss, Captain H. J.


Allen. Lt.-Col. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Munro, Patrick


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Apsley, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
North, Captain Edward T.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Nunn, William


Atholl, Duchess of
Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Atkinson, Cyril
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Patrick, Colin M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pearson, William G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Penny, Sir George


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hanbury, Cecil
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Petherick, M.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hartland, George A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Borodale, Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Bossom, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bracken, Brendan
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsden, E.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rankin, Robert


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hornby, Frank
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horobin, Ian M.
Ray, Sir William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Burghley, Lord
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Remer, John R.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Burnett, John George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Iveagh, Countess of
Robinson, John Roland


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cassels, James Dale
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jamieson, Douglas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Christie, James Archibald
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kimball, Lawrence
Salmon, Major Isidore


Colman, N. C. D.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conant, R. J. E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cook, Thomas A.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooke, Douglas
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A, G. D.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Leckie, J. A.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scone, Lord


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Selley, Harry R.


Craven-Ellis, William
Liddall, Walter S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Donner, P. W.
Lovat-Fraser, lames Alexander
Slater, John


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Eastwood, John Francis
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Eden, Robert Anthony
McKie, John Hamilton
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Elmley, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Storey, Samuel


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Summersby, Charles H.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, Charles
Templeton, William P.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitcheson, G. G.
Thompson, Luke


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Wise, Alfred R.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Womersley, Walter James


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wells, Sydney Richard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Weymouth, Viscount
Wragg, Herbert


Train, John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Mr. Blindell and Lieut.-Colonel


Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
McKeag, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bernays, Robert
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Sled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rothschild, James A. de


Daggar, George
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lawson, John James
Williams. Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mabane, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

Clauses 3 (Amendment as to duty on wine and empire preference) and 4 (Preferential rates of duty on Empire tobacco and coffee) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—.[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margessone.]

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.